Synthesis Explore

Synthesis — Explore (Phase 1 Blind Combinations → Phase 2 Emergent Mechanisms)

This is the FIRST synthesis stage. It fuses two jobs that MUST stay ordered: Phase 1 draws vector combinations BLIND (vector-first, before any tactic exists), and Phase 2 derives the NOVEL MECHANISM that emerges from each combination. Vector-first thinking is the novelty engine: you commit to combinations BEFORE knowing what tactic they might produce, which is how you escape conventional playbooks. Output: 15-20 raw vector combinations + 12-18 validated mechanisms. NO TACTIC NAMES. NO EXECUTION STEPS. (Tactic design is synthesis-build's job.)

Vectors and their definitions come from the per-run growth-factors.json (the LIGHT DB). Do NOT read tactics_DB/ (clean-room — moat-critical). The category structure and {prefix}-NNN-slug ID format are shared conventions; the specific IDs are whatever this run mined.

The two phases are WALLED — do them strictly in order

You MUST complete Phase 1 (blind draw + combinations) in FULL before starting Phase 2 (mechanisms). The output must physically PROVE this ordering: the section ## Blind Draw (IDs only) must precede ## Vector Combinations, which must precede ## Validated Mechanisms. If you catch yourself deriving a mechanism (Phase 2) before the blind draw and combinations (Phase 1) are written, STOP — you have broken the wall; go back.

Inputs & Output

The invoker provides (do not hardcode absolute paths):

• WS/01-diagnostics/founder-input.md
• WS/03-think-tanks/demand-generation/growth-factors.json (LIGHT vector DB — vector IDs, categories, mechanisms, transferability, saturation_risk)
• WS/03-think-tanks/demand-generation/synthesis-constraints.json (mandatory pools, white space, prohibited combinations, category diversity)
• WS/02-enrichment/audience-jtbd.md (trigger events + emotions)
• Think-tank context (use if present): WS/03-think-tanks/demand-generation/cross-industry.md (transferable mechanisms worth combining), competitor-gaps.md (open channels/segments), platform-arbitrage.md (emerging-platform timing windows)
• OUTPUT: WS/03-think-tanks/demand-generation/synthesis-explore.md

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

PHASE 1 — BLIND VECTOR COMBINATIONS (no tactics, no execution)

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Force exploration of vector combinations WITHOUT thinking about tactics yet. Output of this phase: 15-20 raw vector combinations with synergy rationale. NO TACTIC NAMES. NO EXECUTION STEPS.

Critical Rules

YOU MUST NOT: name tactics · describe execution · pick channels · think "what marketing to do" · generate combinations that produce CONVENTIONAL outcomes.

YOU MUST ONLY: explore vector synergies · explain WHY vectors combine · identify white space · document founder leverage · REJECT combinations that produce conventional marketing.

If you find yourself writing a tactic name or execution step, STOP and delete it.

Conventional Outcome Detection (BLOCKING)

Some combinations ALWAYS produce conventional outcomes regardless of framing. REJECT them before they reach Phase 2.

The Mechanism Preview Test — before accepting a combination, ask:

"If I combine these vectors, what mechanism results, in plain English?" If it sounds like standard marketing advice, REJECT.

Apply synthesis-constraints.json → prohibited_combinations. Those are theme-level rules (e.g. customer-research + content-flywheel = "talk to customers, write content"; build-demo + share = "build demos and share them"; community-join + audience-borrowing = "join communities and participate"; content-flywheel + any SEO vector = "write content to rank"; behavioral-cohort + content-funnel = "segment and optimize"). Any pair whose mined vectors match a prohibited theme is REJECTED.

What makes a combination UNCONVENTIONAL — its mechanism (1) a marketer would advise AGAINST ("that's risky/unusual"), (2) competitors structurally CAN'T copy (not just won't), (3) exploits a timing window (first-mover in an emerging space), or (4) requires a specific founder constraint (solo founder can do what enterprise can't).

The Replacement Rule — don't skip a conventional pair, REPLACE it: keep ONE vector, swap the other for a partner (ideally an unconventional_anchor from the constraints file) that produces an unconventional mechanism; re-run the Mechanism Preview Test.

Blind Vector Selection (BEFORE ANY ANALYSIS)

Complete this BEFORE reading enrichment deeply or thinking about tactics — commit to combinations blind. Draw from the three mandatory pools in synthesis-constraints.json, listing ONLY vector IDs (no descriptions/previews yet), into the output's ## Blind Draw (IDs only) section:

• Pool A — White Space (5): from diverse_white_space / mandatory_combinations pool A_white_space.
• Pool B — Cross-Category Synergy (5): from mandatory_combinations pool B_synergy (one per high-synergy category pair).
• Pool C — Founder Leverage (5): from pool C_founder_leverage — both vectors transferability "High", at least one "Emerging", each exploiting a specific unfair advantage the founder possesses.

Checkpoint: 15 combinations drawn blind. If any pool is short (the LIGHT DB is smaller than the paid DB), fill from the nearest cross-category Emerging/High-transferability pairs in growth-factors.json and note the substitution. Only AFTER this may you analyze what the combinations might produce.

Process

1. Load founder context — Industry, Budget, Team, Skills, Stage (brief).
2. Select 2-3 category clusters that fit — from the categories present in growth-factors.json (Structural Arbitrage, Leverage, Resource Optimization, Psychological, Positioning, Conversion), pick the 2-3 best-fit for this founder and say why (e.g. low budget + high technical skill → Structural/Resource lean).
3. Identify synergistic pairs — cross-category pairs from Pool B; explain which fit.
4. Find white space — 5-8 uncommon pairs (Pool A + others); for each: why unexplored? brilliant or foolish? fits constraints?
5. Extract buyer psychology — from audience-jtbd.md: Trigger Event (what happens 24-48h before they search) + Primary Emotion; note which vectors align.

Stripped Core Action Test (BLOCKING — run for EVERY combination)

Part 1 — Raw Action (≤5 words, NO adjectives, no vector IDs). Describe what the combination produces using only verbs + nouns. ("Publish raw failure data" ✓; "Create compelling contrarian content" ✗ — has adjectives.)

Part 2 — The Marketer Test. Would a generic B2B marketer recommend this EXACT raw action? "Obviously do that" → REJECT. "That's risky / unusual / why would you?" → ACCEPT.

Part 2b — Structural Rescue (on REJECT only). If the Marketer Test says REJECT but the competitor analysis (competitor-gaps.md Tier 1) shows a genuine structural barrier preventing competitors from executing this exact action, OVERRIDE the reject → ACCEPT with note [STRUCTURAL RESCUE: <barrier>]. The action looks conventional but competitors structurally can't do it. Max 2 rescues per run.

Part 3 — Emergence Proof (accepted only). Can Vector A ALONE produce the action? Can Vector B ALONE? If BOTH can independently → REJECT (no emergence). If EITHER alone CANNOT → ACCEPT (true synthesis).

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

PHASE 2 — EMERGENT MECHANISMS (what NEW thing emerges)

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Transform the Phase-1 vector combinations into the NOVEL MECHANISM that emerges from each. Output of this phase: 12-18 validated mechanisms with structural-advantage analysis. No tactic names yet.

The test: if you can't explain what EMERGES from the combination that neither vector provides alone, the combination is weak — skip it.

Vector definitions come from the per-run growth-factors.json (each vector's mechanism field — copy it into the "Vector Mechanisms" block for traceability). Do NOT read tactics_DB/.

Critical Rules

MUST NOT: name tactics · name channels/platforms · write execution steps · jump to "how to do this marketing." MUST: describe the emergent MECHANISM · explain what's NOVEL · identify the STRUCTURAL ADVANTAGE type · skip weak combinations.

Conventional Detection Gate (BLOCKING)

For EVERY mechanism, ask: "If I stripped the vector IDs and described this to a traditional B2B marketer, would they say 'Yes, obviously do that'?" YES → REJECT (derive a DIFFERENT emergent capability). NO / "that's unusual" → continue.

Anti-gaming — same thing, different words (ALL REJECTED). Reframing a conventional tactic with fancy language does not make it unconventional. Run the Reframing Test: remove the adjectives (compelling, authentic, contrarian, compounding) — what's the CORE ACTION? If the core action is conventional, REJECT regardless of wording. Examples of core actions that stay conventional however they're dressed up: "talk to customers and write content," "segment users and optimize," "share your work publicly," "build demos and share them," "join communities and participate," "write content to rank in search."

The Unconventional Element Rule: the mechanism description must CONTAIN what makes it non-obvious (e.g. "released as open datasets," "competitors avoid," "before the platform saturates"), not merely imply it.

Structural Advantage Types (classify each mechanism)

• Platform Arbitrage (12-24 mo): new platform/algorithm competitors don't grok yet.
• Competitor Lockout (Permanent): brand/structural constraints stop competitors copying.
• Network Effect (Compounding): value grows with scale; late entrants can't catch up.
• Counterintuitive (Variable): traditional marketers advise against it.
• Execution Lead (3-6 mo): "we'll do it better" — NOT a real structural advantage (flag).