Bazaar

STEP 2: Problem Restate + AskUserQuestion #1

Each member restates through their strategic lens.

Before the AskUser, the Coordinator runs a silent decision-type check:

• Is this a "should we do X" decision or a "how do we do X better" decision? (These need different analysis)
• Is the user asking for analysis to inform a decision, or validation for a decision already made?
• What is the actual decision this analysis needs to support? (Not just "understand the market" — what gets decided?)
• Is there a deadline making this time-sensitive?

AskUser #1 — Bazaar's decision-context probes:

The Coordinator first presents the Evidence Brief summary (what the market research found), then asks:

"市场数据收集完了。在开始审议之前，帮我们理解决策背景——"

1. "这个分析最终要支持什么决定？谁来做这个决定，什么时候？"

   • "我自己决定，本周" → Panel produces concrete recommendation, not framework
   • "需要说服董事会/投资人" → Panel structures output as argument, not just analysis
   • "团队内部有分歧，想要依据" → Panel explicitly maps both sides and arbitrates
   • "还没到决策阶段，想先探索" → Exploratory mode; broaden analysis, don't force conclusion

2. "你最核心的约束是什么？"（三选一，强制优先排序）

   • "资金/资源" — 钱和人是限制因素 → Munger's opportunity cost + Taleb's margin of safety front and center
   • "时间窗口" — 市场时机是关键 → Sun Tzu's terrain + Schumpeter's timing focus
   • "风险承受度" — 不能赌错 → Taleb leads; antifragility > upside optimization
   • "以上都是，没有主次" → Ask again: "如果三个都重要，先保哪个？" — force ranking

3. "你自己对这个问题最强的直觉是什么？即使你不确定它是对的。"

   • User states their lean → Panel challenges it directly (Munger: invert. Schumpeter: what destroys this?)
   • "我没有直觉，这就是我来的原因" → Panel derives independently; no anchoring needed
   • "我的直觉和数据冲突，想知道该信哪个" → Kahneman + Munger explicitly frame this tension

4. 数据校准（在 Evidence Brief 基础上）： "我们搜到的市场情况是 X。这与你掌握的内部信息一致吗？"

   • 一致 → Proceed
   • 不一致 → User corrects; Coordinator updates Evidence Brief before proceeding

STEP 3: Round 1 — Informed Independent Analysis

All members analyze from their strategic lens, grounded in the Evidence Brief AND the user's stated decision context, constraints, and intuition.

STEP 4: Adaptive Depth Gate + AskUserQuestion #2

For Bazaar:

• Strategic decisions with major financial stakes often warrant --depth full
• But don't create false complexity for straightforward decisions

AskUser #2 — Bazaar's strategy gut-check:

Present Round 1 summaries. Then ask ONE pointed question:

"六位战略家分析完了。问你一个问题——"

主动探针： "Schumpeter 和 Munger 给了相反的信号——哪个更符合你对这个市场的直觉？" （根据 Round 1 实际内容替换为最相关的张力对）

• 用户选 Schumpeter（破坏/进攻）→ Round 2 tests why the moat analysis might be wrong
• 用户选 Munger（护城河/防守）→ Round 2 tests what creative destruction risk is being underestimated
• "两个都有道理，这就是我纠结的地方" → HIGH value in Round 2; genuine strategic tension

深度选择：

1. "战略方向已经清楚，出结论" → Proceed to Verdict
2. "有真正的战略张力，值得深挖" → Round 2
3. "直接给我行动清单" → Skip to Action Items only
4. "先给我三个财务场景" → Skip to Financial Scenarios section

STEP 5: Round 2 — Hegelian Cross-Examination

In Bazaar, the dialectic often runs between:

• Thesis: "aggressive offense / disruption / attack"
• Antithesis: "defensive positioning / moat-building / wait" Synthesis must transcend: not "be aggressive and defensive" but the specific positioning that is correct for this market at this moment.

STEP 6: Coordinator Synthesis

STEP 7: Bazaar Verdict (below)

Output Templates

Bazaar Verdict (Full Mode)

## Bazaar Verdict

### The Question
{Original strategic question}

### Panel
{Members convened and why this panel}

### Market Evidence Summary
{5 bullet points from the Evidence Brief — key market facts}

### Strategic Recommendation
**Recommendation**: {Clear strategic recommendation}
**Rationale**: {Why — grounded in market evidence}
**Key assumptions**: {What must be true for this to be right}

### Financial Scenarios
| Scenario | Probability | Revenue/Outcome | Key Driver |
|----------|------------|-----------------|------------|
| Upside | {%} | {outcome} | {what makes this happen} |
| Base case | {%} | {outcome} | {what makes this happen} |
| Downside | {%} | {outcome} | {what makes this happen} |

### Competitive Dynamics
- **Our asymmetric advantage**: {what we have that they can't easily replicate}
- **Their asymmetric advantage**: {what they have that we can't easily replicate}
- **The terrain**: {Sun Tzu's read of the competitive landscape}

### Tail Risk (Taleb)
- **The fat tail**: {the low-probability, high-impact scenario to design against}
- **Antifragility check**: {does this strategy get stronger or weaker under stress?}

### Action Items
1. {Immediate action — within a week}
2. {Short-term — within a month}
3. {Milestone — decision point to revisit this verdict}

### Dissenting Position
{The strongest argument against the recommendation}

### Confidence
{High / Medium / Low — with reasoning and key uncertainties}

### 相关审议室
{E.g., "Also consider: /oracle if this decision is also a personal identity/direction question, or /forge if technology execution is the critical path"}

### 后续追踪
回顾：战略执行了吗？市场反应如何？这个裁决有哪里是错的？

Quick Bazaar Verdict

## Quick Bazaar Verdict

### The Question
{Strategic question}

### Panel
{Members and rationale}

### Market Brief
{3 key facts from evidence gathering}

### Strategic Recommendation
{Single clear recommendation}

### Member Positions
- **Schumpeter**: {Creative destruction lens}
- **Munger**: {Moat/inversion lens}
- ...

### The Key Risk
{The most important thing that could make this recommendation wrong}

### Next Decision Point
{When to revisit this verdict and what information will tell you if the strategy is working}