307 lines
8.2 KiB
Markdown
307 lines
8.2 KiB
Markdown
# Roleplay → Debate → Synthesis Template
|
|
|
|
## Workflow
|
|
|
|
Copy this checklist and track your progress:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
Roleplay → Debate → Synthesis Progress:
|
|
- [ ] Step 1: Frame decision and select 2-5 roles
|
|
- [ ] Step 2: Roleplay each perspective authentically
|
|
- [ ] Step 3: Facilitate structured debate
|
|
- [ ] Step 4: Synthesize unified recommendation
|
|
- [ ] Step 5: Self-assess with rubric
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Step 1: Frame decision and select roles**
|
|
Define the decision question clearly, identify 2-5 stakeholder perspectives with competing interests, and determine what successful synthesis looks like. Use [Quick Template](#quick-template) structure below.
|
|
|
|
**Step 2: Roleplay each perspective**
|
|
For each role, articulate their position, priorities, concerns, evidence, and vulnerabilities without strawmanning. See [Section 2](#2-roles--perspectives) of template structure.
|
|
|
|
**Step 3: Facilitate structured debate**
|
|
Use debate format (point-counterpoint, devil's advocate, crux-finding) to surface tensions and challenge assumptions. See [Section 3](#3-debate) of template structure.
|
|
|
|
**Step 4: Synthesize unified recommendation**
|
|
Integrate insights using synthesis patterns (weighted, sequencing, conditional, hybrid, reframing, or constraint elevation). See [Section 4](#4-synthesis) of template structure and [Synthesis Patterns](#synthesis-patterns).
|
|
|
|
**Step 5: Self-assess with rubric**
|
|
Validate using rubric: perspective authenticity, debate quality, synthesis coherence, and actionability. Use [Quality Checklist](#quality-checklist) before finalizing.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Quick Template
|
|
|
|
Copy this structure to create your analysis:
|
|
|
|
```markdown
|
|
# Decision: [Question]
|
|
|
|
**Date**: [Today's date]
|
|
**Decision-maker**: [Who decides]
|
|
**Stakes**: [High/Medium/Low - impact and reversibility]
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 1. Decision Context
|
|
|
|
**What we're deciding:**
|
|
[Clear statement of the choice - "Should we X?" or "What's the right balance between X and Y?"]
|
|
|
|
**Why this matters:**
|
|
[Business impact, urgency, strategic importance]
|
|
|
|
**Success criteria for synthesis:**
|
|
[What makes this synthesis successful]
|
|
|
|
**Constraints:**
|
|
- [Budget, timeline, requirements, non-negotiables]
|
|
|
|
**Audience:** [Who needs to approve or act on this decision]
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 2. Roles & Perspectives
|
|
|
|
### Role 1: [Name - e.g., "Engineering Lead" or "Growth Advocate"]
|
|
|
|
**Position**: [What they believe should be done]
|
|
|
|
**Priorities**: [What values or goals drive this position]
|
|
- [Priority 1]
|
|
- [Priority 2]
|
|
- [Priority 3]
|
|
|
|
**Concerns about alternatives**: [What risks or downsides they see]
|
|
- [Concern 1]
|
|
- [Concern 2]
|
|
|
|
**Evidence**: [What data, experience, or reasoning supports this view]
|
|
- [Evidence 1]
|
|
- [Evidence 2]
|
|
|
|
**Vulnerabilities**: [What uncertainties or limitations they acknowledge]
|
|
- [What they're unsure about]
|
|
- [What could prove them wrong]
|
|
|
|
**Success metrics**: [How this role measures success]
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Role 2: [Name]
|
|
|
|
[Same structure as Role 1]
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Role 3: [Name] (if applicable)
|
|
|
|
[Same structure as Role 1]
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 3. Debate
|
|
|
|
### Key Points of Disagreement
|
|
|
|
**Dimension 1: [e.g., "Timeline - Fast vs. Thorough"]**
|
|
- **[Role A]**: [Their position on this dimension]
|
|
- **[Role B]**: [Their position on this dimension]
|
|
- **Tension**: [Where the conflict lies]
|
|
|
|
**Dimension 2: [e.g., "Risk Tolerance"]**
|
|
- **[Role A]**: [Position]
|
|
- **[Role B]**: [Position]
|
|
- **Tension**: [Conflict]
|
|
|
|
### Debate Transcript (Point-Counterpoint)
|
|
|
|
**[Role A] Opening Case:**
|
|
[Their argument for their position - 2-3 paragraphs]
|
|
|
|
**[Role B] Response:**
|
|
[Objections and counterarguments - 2-3 paragraphs]
|
|
|
|
**[Role A] Rebuttal:**
|
|
[Addresses objections - 1-2 paragraphs]
|
|
|
|
**Cross-examination:**
|
|
- **[Role A] to [Role B]**: [Probing question]
|
|
- **[Role B]**: [Response]
|
|
|
|
### Cruxes (What Would Change Minds)
|
|
|
|
**[Role A] would shift if:**
|
|
- [Condition or evidence that would change their position]
|
|
|
|
**[Role B] would shift if:**
|
|
- [Condition or evidence]
|
|
|
|
### Areas of Agreement
|
|
|
|
Despite disagreements, roles agree on:
|
|
- [Common ground 1]
|
|
- [Common ground 2]
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 4. Synthesis
|
|
|
|
### Integration Approach
|
|
|
|
**Pattern used**: [Weighted Synthesis / Sequencing / Conditional / Hybrid / Reframing / Constraint Elevation]
|
|
|
|
**Synthesis statement:**
|
|
[1-2 paragraphs explaining the unified recommendation that integrates insights from all perspectives]
|
|
|
|
### What We're Prioritizing
|
|
|
|
**Primary focus**: [What's being prioritized and why]
|
|
- From [Role X]: [What we're adopting from this perspective]
|
|
- From [Role Y]: [What we're adopting]
|
|
|
|
**Secondary considerations**: [How we're addressing other concerns]
|
|
- [Role X]'s concern about [issue]: Mitigated by [approach]
|
|
|
|
### Tradeoffs Accepted
|
|
|
|
**We're accepting:**
|
|
- [Tradeoff 1]
|
|
- **Rationale**: [Why this makes sense]
|
|
|
|
**We're NOT accepting:**
|
|
- [What we explicitly decided against]
|
|
- **Reason**: [Why rejected]
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 5. Recommendation
|
|
|
|
**Recommended Action:**
|
|
[Clear, specific recommendation in 1-2 sentences]
|
|
|
|
**Rationale:**
|
|
[2-3 paragraphs explaining why this synthesis is the best path forward]
|
|
|
|
**Key factors driving this decision:**
|
|
1. [Factor 1 - from which role's perspective]
|
|
2. [Factor 2]
|
|
3. [Factor 3]
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 6. Implementation
|
|
|
|
**Immediate next steps:**
|
|
1. [Action 1] - [Owner] by [Date]
|
|
2. [Action 2] - [Owner] by [Date]
|
|
3. [Action 3] - [Owner] by [Date]
|
|
|
|
**Phased approach:** (if using sequencing)
|
|
- **Phase 1** ([Timeline]): [What happens first]
|
|
- **Phase 2** ([Timeline]): [What happens next]
|
|
|
|
**Conditional triggers:** (if using conditional strategy)
|
|
- **If [condition A]**: [Then do X]
|
|
- **If [condition B]**: [Then do Y]
|
|
|
|
**Success metrics:**
|
|
- [Metric 1 - from Role X's perspective]: Target [value] by [date]
|
|
- [Metric 2 - from Role Y's perspective]: Target [value] by [date]
|
|
|
|
**Monitoring plan:**
|
|
- **Weekly**: [What we track frequently]
|
|
- **Monthly**: [What we review periodically]
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 7. Stakeholder Communication
|
|
|
|
**For [Stakeholder Group A - e.g., Executive Team]:**
|
|
- Key message: [1-sentence summary]
|
|
- Focus on: [What matters most to them]
|
|
|
|
**For [Stakeholder Group B - e.g., Engineering Team]:**
|
|
- Key message: [1-sentence summary]
|
|
- Focus on: [What matters most to them]
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 8. Appendix: Assumptions & Uncertainties
|
|
|
|
**Key assumptions:**
|
|
1. [Assumption 1]
|
|
- **Confidence**: High / Medium / Low
|
|
- **Impact if wrong**: [What happens]
|
|
|
|
**Unresolved uncertainties:**
|
|
- [Uncertainty 1]: [How we'll handle this]
|
|
|
|
**What would change our mind:**
|
|
- [Condition or evidence that would trigger reconsideration]
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Synthesis Patterns
|
|
|
|
### 1. Weighted Synthesis
|
|
"Prioritize X, while incorporating safeguards for Y"
|
|
- Example: "Ship fast (PM), with feature flags and monitoring (Engineer)"
|
|
|
|
### 2. Sequencing
|
|
"First X, then Y"
|
|
- Example: "Launch MVP (Growth), then invest in quality (Engineering) if PMF proven"
|
|
|
|
### 3. Conditional Strategy
|
|
"If A, do X; if B, do Y"
|
|
- Example: "If >10K users in Q1, scale; otherwise pivot"
|
|
|
|
### 4. Hybrid Approach
|
|
"Combine elements of multiple perspectives"
|
|
- Example: "Build core in-house (control) but buy peripherals (speed)"
|
|
|
|
### 5. Reframing
|
|
"Debate reveals real question is Z, not X vs Y"
|
|
- Example: "Pricing debate reveals we need to segment customers first"
|
|
|
|
### 6. Constraint Elevation
|
|
"Identify binding constraint all perspectives agree on"
|
|
- Example: "Both agree eng capacity is bottleneck; hire first"
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Quality Checklist
|
|
|
|
Before finalizing, verify:
|
|
|
|
**Roleplay quality:**
|
|
- [ ] Each role has clear position, priorities, concerns, evidence
|
|
- [ ] Perspectives feel authentic (not strawmen)
|
|
- [ ] Vulnerabilities acknowledged
|
|
- [ ] Success metrics defined for each role
|
|
|
|
**Debate quality:**
|
|
- [ ] Key disagreements surfaced on 3-5 dimensions
|
|
- [ ] Perspectives directly engage (not talking past each other)
|
|
- [ ] Cruxes identified (what would change minds)
|
|
- [ ] Areas of agreement noted
|
|
|
|
**Synthesis quality:**
|
|
- [ ] Clear integration approach (weighted/sequencing/conditional/hybrid/reframe/constraint)
|
|
- [ ] All roles' concerns addressed (not dismissed)
|
|
- [ ] Tradeoffs explicit (what we're accepting and why)
|
|
- [ ] Recommendation is unified and coherent
|
|
- [ ] Actionable next steps with owners and dates
|
|
|
|
**Communication quality:**
|
|
- [ ] Tailored for different stakeholders
|
|
- [ ] Key messages clear (1-sentence summaries)
|
|
- [ ] Emphasis appropriate for audience
|
|
|
|
**Integrity:**
|
|
- [ ] Assumptions stated explicitly
|
|
- [ ] Uncertainties acknowledged
|
|
- [ ] "What would change our mind" conditions specified
|
|
- [ ] No perspective dismissed without engagement
|