Scenario War Room
Tier: POWERFUL
Category: C-Level Advisory
Tags: scenario planning, war room, risk modeling, cascade effects, contingency planning, pre-mortem, crisis simulation
Overview
The Scenario War Room models cascading what-if scenarios across all business functions. Not single-assumption stress tests -- compound adversity that shows how one problem creates the next, and where the cascade can be interrupted. Every scenario produces concrete hedges with costs, owners, and deadlines.
When to Use
- A major risk has probability above 15% and impact above 20% of ARR
- Two or more threats could plausibly co-occur
- A strategic decision has significant downside if wrong
- Board or investors are asking "what's the worst case?"
- Pre-mortem before a major commitment (fundraise, acquisition, market entry)
- Quarterly risk review for leadership team
When NOT to Use
- Single-variable financial sensitivity analysis (use CFO Advisor stress testing)
- Routine project risk assessment (use project management risk frameworks)
- Technical failure mode analysis (use engineering incident planning)
Clarify First
Before generating, confirm these inputs. If any is unknown or vague, ASK — do not assume:
Stop rule: ask only the 2-3 that most change the output. If the user says "just draft it," proceed and list your assumptions at the top of the artifact.
The 6-Step Cascade Model
Step 1: Define Scenario Variables (Maximum 3)
More than 3 variables creates analysis paralysis, not insight. Choose the 3 that actually keep leadership awake at night.
For each variable, specify:
| Field |
Description |
Example |
| What changes |
Specific, quantified |
"Top customer (28% of ARR) gives 60-day termination notice" |
| Probability |
Your best estimate |
15% |
| Timeline |
When it could hit |
Within 90 days |
| Detection signal |
How you would know it is happening |
Sponsor goes dark, usage drops 25% MoM |
Variable Template:
Variable A: [Specific change]
Probability: [X]% | Timeline: [When]
Detection: [Early warning signal]
First-order impact: [Immediate consequence]
Variable B: [Specific change]
Probability: [X]% | Timeline: [When]
Detection: [Early warning signal]
First-order impact: [Immediate consequence]
Variable C: [Specific change]
Probability: [X]% | Timeline: [When]
Detection: [Early warning signal]
First-order impact: [Immediate consequence]
Step 2: Domain Impact Mapping
For each variable, assess impact across every business function:
| Domain |
Key Questions |
Typical Impact Areas |
| Finance (CFO) |
Burn impact? Runway change? Bridge options? |
Cash, runway, covenant triggers |
| Revenue (CRO) |
ARR gap? Churn cascade? Pipeline affected? |
NRR, expansion, new logo risk |
| Product (CPO) |
Roadmap derailed? PMF at risk? Customer need shift? |
Delivery timeline, feature priority |
| Engineering (CTO) |
Velocity hit? Key person risk? Technical debt impact? |
Capacity, architecture, hiring |
| People (CHRO) |
Attrition cascade? Hiring freeze? Morale impact? |
Retention, culture, bench strength |
| Operations (COO) |
Capacity affected? Process breaks? OKR impact? |
SLAs, efficiency, scale |
| Market (CMO) |
CAC affected? Competitive exposure? Brand risk? |
Pipeline generation, positioning |
| Legal/Compliance |
Regulatory timeline risk? Contract exposure? |
Obligations, deadlines, penalties |
Step 3: Cascade Mapping (The Core)
This is the most valuable step. Map how Variable A triggers consequences that amplify Variable B.
Cascade Diagram:
TRIGGER: Customer churn ($560K ARR)
│
├──▶ CFO: Runway drops 14 → 8 months
│ │
│ └──▶ CHRO: Hiring freeze imposed
│ │
│ └──▶ CTO: 3 open engineering reqs frozen, roadmap slips 2 months
│ │
│ └──▶ CPO: Q4 feature launch delayed → 2 more customers at risk
│ │
│ └──▶ CRO: NRR drops → additional churn risk (DEATH SPIRAL ENTRY)
│
└──▶ CRO: Revenue concentration increases (next largest = 22%)
│
└──▶ Investors: Concentration risk flagged → Series A terms worsen
Name the cascades explicitly. Common cascade patterns:
| Cascade Pattern |
Description |
Interruption Point |
| Revenue-to-Runway Death Spiral |
Customer churn → lower runway → hiring freeze → slower product → more churn |
Emergency revenue diversification |
| Key Person Cascade |
Star leaves → team morale drops → followers leave → velocity collapses |
Retention bonuses before departure |
| Market Squeeze |
Competitor raises → price war → margins compress → can't invest in product |
Differentiation, not price matching |
| Trust Cascade |
Incident → customer concern → churn → press → more churn |
Swift, transparent communication |
| Fundraise-Burn Spiral |
Miss target → raise delayed → bridge at bad terms → burn cuts → team loss |
Parallel fundraise tracks |
Step 4: Severity Matrix
Model three scenarios with increasing severity:
| Scenario |
Variables Hit |
Definition |
Recovery Difficulty |
| Base |
1 of 3 |
Single shock, others don't materialize |
Manageable with prepared response |
| Stress |
2 of 3 |
Compound shock, cascade begins |
Requires significant pivot, board involvement |
| Severe |
All 3 |
Full cascade, existential territory |
Requires emergency action, may need board intervention |
For each severity level, quantify:
BASE SCENARIO (Variable A only):
Runway impact: [X] months → [Y] months
ARR impact: -$[X] ([Y]% of total)
Headcount impact: [freeze / reduction / none]
Timeline to critical: [X] months
Recovery plan: [specific actions]
STRESS SCENARIO (Variables A + B):
Runway impact: [X] months → [Y] months
ARR impact: -$[X] ([Y]% of total)
Headcount impact: [specifics]
Timeline to critical: [X] months
Recovery plan: [specific actions]
SEVERE SCENARIO (All three):
Runway impact: [X] months → [Y] months
ARR impact: -$[X] ([Y]% of total)
Headcount impact: [specifics]
Timeline to critical: [X] months
Existential: [yes/no]
Emergency plan: [specific actions requiring board approval]
Step 5: Early Warning Signals (Trigger Points)
Define measurable signals that tell you a scenario is unfolding BEFORE it is confirmed. The value of this exercise is acting early, not reacting late.
Signal Design Criteria:
- Observable (you can actually measure it)
- Leading (appears before the full impact)
- Specific (not just "things feel off")
- Actionable (triggers a specific response)
| Variable |
Signal |
Threshold |
Response |
| Customer churn |
Sponsor stops responding |
> 3 weeks silence |
Exec escalation, QBR request |
| Customer churn |
Usage drops |
> 25% MoM decline |
CS outreach, value review |
| Fundraise delay |
Term sheets |
< 3 after 60 days in process |
Parallel bridge conversations |
| Fundraise delay |
Investor requests |
> 30 day DD extension |
Reduce burn, extend runway |
| Key person departure |
Market compensation |
Counter-offer required in last 90 days |
Retention package, succession plan |
| Key person departure |
External engagement |
Engineer presenting at conferences for competitors |
Direct conversation, role expansion |
Step 6: Hedging Strategies
For each scenario: actions to take NOW (before the scenario materializes) that reduce impact if it does. Hedges have costs -- the goal is cheap insurance, not paranoia.
Hedge Evaluation Criteria:
| Criterion |
Question |
| Cost |
What does this hedge cost to implement? |
| Reversibility |
Can we undo it if the scenario doesn't happen? |
| Lead time |
How long to implement? (Must be shorter than detection-to-impact window) |
| Coverage |
Which scenarios does this hedge protect against? |
| Side effects |
Does this hedge cause other problems? |
Hedge Table Template:
| Hedge |
Cost |
Protects Against |
Owner |
Deadline |
Status |
| Establish $500K credit line |
$5K/year |
Runway shortfall (Base + Stress) |
CFO |
60 days |
Not started |
| 12-month retention bonus for 3 key engineers |
$90K |
Key person departure (all scenarios) |
CHRO |
30 days |
In progress |
| Diversify to <20% revenue per customer |
Sales effort (6 months) |
Single-customer dependency |
CRO |
2 quarters |
Planning |
| Start parallel fundraise track |
CEO time (10 hrs/week) |
Fundraise delay (Stress + Severe) |
CEO |
Immediate |
Not started |
| Pre-negotiate bridge terms with existing investors |
2 board conversations |
Runway crisis (Severe) |
CFO + CEO |
45 days |
Not started |
| Document architecture for bus factor reduction |
2 engineering weeks |
Key person departure |
CTO |
30 days |
Not started |
Output Format
Every war room session produces this structured output:
SCENARIO: [Name]
DATE: [Date of analysis]
PARTICIPANTS: [Who was involved]
VARIABLES:
A: [Description] — Probability: [X]%, Timeline: [When]
B: [Description] — Probability: [X]%, Timeline: [When]
C: [Description] — Probability: [X]%, Timeline: [When]
MOST LIKELY PATH: [Which combination actually plays out, with reasoning]
SEVERITY LEVELS:
Base (A only): Runway [X]→[Y]mo, ARR impact -$[X]
Recovery: [2-3 specific actions]
Stress (A+B): Runway [X]→[Y]mo, ARR impact -$[X]
Recovery: [3-4 specific actions]
Severe (A+B+C): Runway [X]→[Y]mo, ARR impact -$[X]
Existential: [yes/no]
Emergency: [actions requiring board approval]
CASCADE MAP:
[A] → [domain impact] → [triggers B amplification] → [domain impact] → [end state]
Interruption points: [where cascade can be broken]
EARLY WARNING SIGNALS:
1. [Signal] → indicates [scenario], threshold: [specific]
2. [Signal] → indicates [scenario], threshold: [specific]
3. [Signal] → indicates [scenario], threshold: [specific]
HEDGES (implement now):
1. [Action] — cost: $[X] — protects: [scenarios] — owner: [role] — deadline: [date]
2. [Action] — cost: $[X] — protects: [scenarios] — owner: [role] — deadline: [date]
3. [Action] — cost: $[X] — protects: [scenarios] — owner: [role] — deadline: [date]
RECOMMENDED DECISION:
[One paragraph: what to do, in what order, and why]
REVIEW DATE: [When to re-run this analysis — typically 90 days or after any variable shifts]
Common Scenarios by Company Stage
Seed Stage
- Co-founder departure + product misses launch deadline
- Runway runs out + bridge terms are predatory
- Key technical hire falls through + competitor ships first
Series A
- Miss ARR target + fundraise delayed
- Top customer churns + competitor raises large round
- Key engineer leaves + critical feature deadline
Series B+
- Market contraction + burn multiple spikes above 3x
- Lead investor wants strategic pivot + team resists
- Regulatory change + product requires rearchitecture
War Room Ground Rules
- Maximum 3 variables per scenario. More is noise. Model the ones that actually matter.
- Quantify or estimate. "Revenue drops" is not useful. "$420K ARR at risk over 60 days" is. Use ranges if uncertain.
- Don't stop at first-order effects. The real damage is always in the cascade.
- Model recovery, not just impact. Every scenario must have a "what we do" path.
- Separate base case from sensitivity. Don't conflate "what probably happens" with "what could happen."
- 3-4 scenarios per planning cycle. More creates analysis paralysis.
- Review every 90 days. Probabilities and variables change. Stale scenarios give false comfort.
- No judgment-free zone. People must feel safe naming ugly scenarios.
Related Skills
| Skill |
Use When |
| ceo-advisor |
Strategic decisions that scenarios inform |
| cfo-advisor |
Financial modeling for scenario impacts |
| coo-advisor |
Operational contingency planning |
| internal-narrative |
Communicating scenario outcomes to stakeholders |
| cs-onboard |
Company context that feeds scenario variables |
Troubleshooting
| Problem |
Likely Cause |
Resolution |
| Scenarios feel too abstract to act on |
Variables not specific or quantified enough |
Require dollar amounts, percentages, and timelines for every variable; "revenue drops" is not actionable, "$420K ARR at risk over 60 days" is |
| Team generates only obvious, low-probability scenarios |
Conformity bias; not applying Shell scenario planning method of challenging mental models |
Use inversion technique: "What would guarantee our failure?"; bring in external perspective; reference industry-specific historical precedents |
| Cascade mapping stops at first-order effects |
Facilitator not pushing past immediate consequences |
Require minimum 3 levels of cascade for each variable; use "and then what?" prompting for each domain impact |
| Hedges identified but never implemented |
No ownership, deadline, or cost attached |
Every hedge must have: cost estimate, owner name, deadline, and status tracking; review in weekly leadership meeting |
| War room sessions take too long (> 4 hours) |
Too many variables or trying to model every scenario |
Enforce maximum 3 variables and 3-4 scenarios per session; use severity matrix to focus on highest-impact combinations |
| Early warning signals not being monitored |
Signals assigned but not integrated into existing reporting |
Add signals to existing dashboards and weekly scorecards; assign specific person to monitor each signal |
| Participants reluctant to name worst-case scenarios |
Fear of being seen as negative or alarmist |
Establish ground rules explicitly; cite Shell's experience: "the value is in surfacing what others won't say"; reward naming hard truths |
Success Criteria
- Each scenario session produces exactly 3 variables, 3 severity levels, and a cascade map with interruption points identified
- Early warning signals are specific enough to be monitored: observable, leading, and actionable with defined thresholds
- Hedges are costed, owned, and have deadlines within 7 days of the war room session
- At least one hedge per scenario is implemented (not just planned) within 30 days
- Scenario review conducted every 90 days with probability updates based on new information
- When an early warning signal fires, the pre-planned response is executed within the defined timeline
- War room output is concise enough for board consumption: one-page summary per scenario
Scope & Limitations
- In scope: Multi-variable scenario construction, cascade modeling across all business functions, severity matrix analysis, early warning signal design, hedge strategy with cost-benefit analysis, scenario review cadence
- Out of scope: Single-variable financial sensitivity analysis (use CFO Advisor stress testing); technical failure mode analysis (use engineering incident planning); routine project risk assessment (use project management frameworks); insurance and risk transfer (use specialized broker)
- Limitation: Scenario probabilities are subjective estimates, not actuarial calculations; value is in preparedness, not prediction accuracy
- Limitation: Framework assumes scenarios are independent or correlated; black swan events by definition are not modelable
- Limitation: Cascade mapping is based on common organizational patterns; unique company structures may have different cascade paths
- Limitation: Maximum 3 variables per scenario is a deliberate constraint; more variables create analysis paralysis, not better insight
Integration Points
| Skill |
Integration |
Data Flow |
ceo-advisor |
Strategic decisions informed by scenario analysis |
War room scenarios → CEO decision inputs |
cfo-advisor |
Financial modeling for scenario impacts and hedge costs |
War room financial impacts → CFO stress test models |
coo-advisor |
Operational contingency planning and cascade interruption |
War room cascade map → COO contingency plans |
executive-mentor |
Pre-mortem failure modes feed into scenario variables |
Mentor failure modes → War room variables |
internal-narrative |
Crisis scenarios require pre-built communication plans |
War room crisis scenarios → Narrative crisis templates |
org-health-diagnostic |
Health dimension scores surface scenario variables |
Health red flags → War room variable candidates |
strategic-alignment |
Scenario outcomes may require strategic realignment |
War room outcomes → Alignment reassessment |
Python Tools
| Tool |
Purpose |
Usage |
scripts/scenario_builder.py |
Build structured scenarios with variables, probabilities, detection signals, and severity levels |
python scripts/scenario_builder.py --name "Customer Concentration Risk" --variable "Top customer churns" --probability 20 --impact 500000 --timeline 90 --json |
scripts/impact_matrix_calculator.py |
Calculate compound impact across multiple variables with severity matrix and cascade risk scoring |
python scripts/impact_matrix_calculator.py --variables "churn:500000:0.2" "fundraise_delay:0:0.3" "key_departure:0:0.15" --arr 2000000 --runway-months 14 --json |
scripts/decision_tree_analyzer.py |
Build and evaluate decision trees with expected value calculations for strategic options |
python scripts/decision_tree_analyzer.py --decision "Enter Japan market" --option "Direct:0.6:2000000:-500000" --option "Partnership:0.75:1000000:-200000" --option "Wait:1.0:0:0" --json |
1---
2name: scenario-war-room
3description: >
4 Cross-functional what-if modeling for compound adversity -- shows how one
5 problem cascades into the next. Use when facing complex risk scenarios,
6 strategic decisions with major downside, or multi-variable threats.
7license: MIT + Commons Clause
8metadata:
9 version: 1.0.0
10 author: borghei
11 category: c-level
12 domain: strategic-planning
13 tier: POWERFUL
14 updated: 2026-03-09
15 frameworks: cascade-modeling, scenario-planning, pre-mortem, contingency-design
16---
17
18# Scenario War Room
19
20**Tier:** POWERFUL
21**Category:** C-Level Advisory
22**Tags:** scenario planning, war room, risk modeling, cascade effects, contingency planning, pre-mortem, crisis simulation
23
24## Overview
25
26The Scenario War Room models cascading what-if scenarios across all business functions. Not single-assumption stress tests -- compound adversity that shows how one problem creates the next, and where the cascade can be interrupted. Every scenario produces concrete hedges with costs, owners, and deadlines.
27
28---
29
30## When to Use
31
32- A major risk has probability above 15% and impact above 20% of ARR
33- Two or more threats could plausibly co-occur
34- A strategic decision has significant downside if wrong
35- Board or investors are asking "what's the worst case?"
36- Pre-mortem before a major commitment (fundraise, acquisition, market entry)
37- Quarterly risk review for leadership team
38
39## When NOT to Use
40
41- Single-variable financial sensitivity analysis (use CFO Advisor stress testing)
42- Routine project risk assessment (use project management risk frameworks)
43- Technical failure mode analysis (use engineering incident planning)
44
45---
46
47## Clarify First
48
49Before generating, confirm these inputs. If any is unknown or vague, ASK — do not assume:
50
51- [ ] **The (maximum 3) variables that actually keep leadership awake** — the entire model is built around these; the wrong variables produce a useless scenario
52- [ ] **Probability, timeline, and quantified impact for each variable** — "revenue drops" is not actionable; "$420K ARR at risk over 60 days" is, and severity levels depend on it
53- [ ] **Current baseline** (ARR, runway in months, headcount) — cascade and severity math (e.g., runway going 14→8 months) requires the starting numbers
54- [ ] **Company stage** — common scenario patterns and what counts as existential differ by stage
55
56Stop rule: ask only the 2-3 that most change the output. If the user says "just draft it," proceed and list your assumptions at the top of the artifact.
57
58---
59
60## The 6-Step Cascade Model
61
62### Step 1: Define Scenario Variables (Maximum 3)
63
64More than 3 variables creates analysis paralysis, not insight. Choose the 3 that actually keep leadership awake at night.
65
66For each variable, specify:
67
68| Field | Description | Example |
69|-------|-----------|---------|
70| **What changes** | Specific, quantified | "Top customer (28% of ARR) gives 60-day termination notice" |
71| **Probability** | Your best estimate | 15% |
72| **Timeline** | When it could hit | Within 90 days |
73| **Detection signal** | How you would know it is happening | Sponsor goes dark, usage drops 25% MoM |
74
75**Variable Template:**
76```
77Variable A: [Specific change]
78 Probability: [X]% | Timeline: [When]
79 Detection: [Early warning signal]
80 First-order impact: [Immediate consequence]
81
82Variable B: [Specific change]
83 Probability: [X]% | Timeline: [When]
84 Detection: [Early warning signal]
85 First-order impact: [Immediate consequence]
86
87Variable C: [Specific change]
88 Probability: [X]% | Timeline: [When]
89 Detection: [Early warning signal]
90 First-order impact: [Immediate consequence]
91```
92
93### Step 2: Domain Impact Mapping
94
95For each variable, assess impact across every business function:
96
97| Domain | Key Questions | Typical Impact Areas |
98|--------|-------------|---------------------|
99| **Finance (CFO)** | Burn impact? Runway change? Bridge options? | Cash, runway, covenant triggers |
100| **Revenue (CRO)** | ARR gap? Churn cascade? Pipeline affected? | NRR, expansion, new logo risk |
101| **Product (CPO)** | Roadmap derailed? PMF at risk? Customer need shift? | Delivery timeline, feature priority |
102| **Engineering (CTO)** | Velocity hit? Key person risk? Technical debt impact? | Capacity, architecture, hiring |
103| **People (CHRO)** | Attrition cascade? Hiring freeze? Morale impact? | Retention, culture, bench strength |
104| **Operations (COO)** | Capacity affected? Process breaks? OKR impact? | SLAs, efficiency, scale |
105| **Market (CMO)** | CAC affected? Competitive exposure? Brand risk? | Pipeline generation, positioning |
106| **Legal/Compliance** | Regulatory timeline risk? Contract exposure? | Obligations, deadlines, penalties |
107
108### Step 3: Cascade Mapping (The Core)
109
110This is the most valuable step. Map how Variable A triggers consequences that amplify Variable B.
111
112**Cascade Diagram:**
113```
114TRIGGER: Customer churn ($560K ARR)
115 │
116 ├──▶ CFO: Runway drops 14 → 8 months
117 │ │
118 │ └──▶ CHRO: Hiring freeze imposed
119 │ │
120 │ └──▶ CTO: 3 open engineering reqs frozen, roadmap slips 2 months
121 │ │
122 │ └──▶ CPO: Q4 feature launch delayed → 2 more customers at risk
123 │ │
124 │ └──▶ CRO: NRR drops → additional churn risk (DEATH SPIRAL ENTRY)
125 │
126 └──▶ CRO: Revenue concentration increases (next largest = 22%)
127 │
128 └──▶ Investors: Concentration risk flagged → Series A terms worsen
129```
130
131**Name the cascades explicitly.** Common cascade patterns:
132
133| Cascade Pattern | Description | Interruption Point |
134|----------------|-------------|-------------------|
135| Revenue-to-Runway Death Spiral | Customer churn → lower runway → hiring freeze → slower product → more churn | Emergency revenue diversification |
136| Key Person Cascade | Star leaves → team morale drops → followers leave → velocity collapses | Retention bonuses before departure |
137| Market Squeeze | Competitor raises → price war → margins compress → can't invest in product | Differentiation, not price matching |
138| Trust Cascade | Incident → customer concern → churn → press → more churn | Swift, transparent communication |
139| Fundraise-Burn Spiral | Miss target → raise delayed → bridge at bad terms → burn cuts → team loss | Parallel fundraise tracks |
140
141### Step 4: Severity Matrix
142
143Model three scenarios with increasing severity:
144
145| Scenario | Variables Hit | Definition | Recovery Difficulty |
146|----------|-------------|-----------|-------------------|
147| **Base** | 1 of 3 | Single shock, others don't materialize | Manageable with prepared response |
148| **Stress** | 2 of 3 | Compound shock, cascade begins | Requires significant pivot, board involvement |
149| **Severe** | All 3 | Full cascade, existential territory | Requires emergency action, may need board intervention |
150
151For each severity level, quantify:
152
153```
154BASE SCENARIO (Variable A only):
155 Runway impact: [X] months → [Y] months
156 ARR impact: -$[X] ([Y]% of total)
157 Headcount impact: [freeze / reduction / none]
158 Timeline to critical: [X] months
159 Recovery plan: [specific actions]
160
161STRESS SCENARIO (Variables A + B):
162 Runway impact: [X] months → [Y] months
163 ARR impact: -$[X] ([Y]% of total)
164 Headcount impact: [specifics]
165 Timeline to critical: [X] months
166 Recovery plan: [specific actions]
167
168SEVERE SCENARIO (All three):
169 Runway impact: [X] months → [Y] months
170 ARR impact: -$[X] ([Y]% of total)
171 Headcount impact: [specifics]
172 Timeline to critical: [X] months
173 Existential: [yes/no]
174 Emergency plan: [specific actions requiring board approval]
175```
176
177### Step 5: Early Warning Signals (Trigger Points)
178
179Define measurable signals that tell you a scenario is unfolding BEFORE it is confirmed. The value of this exercise is acting early, not reacting late.
180
181**Signal Design Criteria:**
182- Observable (you can actually measure it)
183- Leading (appears before the full impact)
184- Specific (not just "things feel off")
185- Actionable (triggers a specific response)
186
187| Variable | Signal | Threshold | Response |
188|----------|--------|-----------|----------|
189| Customer churn | Sponsor stops responding | > 3 weeks silence | Exec escalation, QBR request |
190| Customer churn | Usage drops | > 25% MoM decline | CS outreach, value review |
191| Fundraise delay | Term sheets | < 3 after 60 days in process | Parallel bridge conversations |
192| Fundraise delay | Investor requests | > 30 day DD extension | Reduce burn, extend runway |
193| Key person departure | Market compensation | Counter-offer required in last 90 days | Retention package, succession plan |
194| Key person departure | External engagement | Engineer presenting at conferences for competitors | Direct conversation, role expansion |
195
196### Step 6: Hedging Strategies
197
198For each scenario: actions to take NOW (before the scenario materializes) that reduce impact if it does. Hedges have costs -- the goal is cheap insurance, not paranoia.
199
200**Hedge Evaluation Criteria:**
201
202| Criterion | Question |
203|-----------|----------|
204| Cost | What does this hedge cost to implement? |
205| Reversibility | Can we undo it if the scenario doesn't happen? |
206| Lead time | How long to implement? (Must be shorter than detection-to-impact window) |
207| Coverage | Which scenarios does this hedge protect against? |
208| Side effects | Does this hedge cause other problems? |
209
210**Hedge Table Template:**
211
212| Hedge | Cost | Protects Against | Owner | Deadline | Status |
213|-------|------|-----------------|-------|----------|--------|
214| Establish $500K credit line | $5K/year | Runway shortfall (Base + Stress) | CFO | 60 days | Not started |
215| 12-month retention bonus for 3 key engineers | $90K | Key person departure (all scenarios) | CHRO | 30 days | In progress |
216| Diversify to <20% revenue per customer | Sales effort (6 months) | Single-customer dependency | CRO | 2 quarters | Planning |
217| Start parallel fundraise track | CEO time (10 hrs/week) | Fundraise delay (Stress + Severe) | CEO | Immediate | Not started |
218| Pre-negotiate bridge terms with existing investors | 2 board conversations | Runway crisis (Severe) | CFO + CEO | 45 days | Not started |
219| Document architecture for bus factor reduction | 2 engineering weeks | Key person departure | CTO | 30 days | Not started |
220
221---
222
223## Output Format
224
225Every war room session produces this structured output:
226
227```
228SCENARIO: [Name]
229DATE: [Date of analysis]
230PARTICIPANTS: [Who was involved]
231
232VARIABLES:
233 A: [Description] — Probability: [X]%, Timeline: [When]
234 B: [Description] — Probability: [X]%, Timeline: [When]
235 C: [Description] — Probability: [X]%, Timeline: [When]
236
237MOST LIKELY PATH: [Which combination actually plays out, with reasoning]
238
239SEVERITY LEVELS:
240 Base (A only): Runway [X]→[Y]mo, ARR impact -$[X]
241 Recovery: [2-3 specific actions]
242 Stress (A+B): Runway [X]→[Y]mo, ARR impact -$[X]
243 Recovery: [3-4 specific actions]
244 Severe (A+B+C): Runway [X]→[Y]mo, ARR impact -$[X]
245 Existential: [yes/no]
246 Emergency: [actions requiring board approval]
247
248CASCADE MAP:
249 [A] → [domain impact] → [triggers B amplification] → [domain impact] → [end state]
250 Interruption points: [where cascade can be broken]
251
252EARLY WARNING SIGNALS:
253 1. [Signal] → indicates [scenario], threshold: [specific]
254 2. [Signal] → indicates [scenario], threshold: [specific]
255 3. [Signal] → indicates [scenario], threshold: [specific]
256
257HEDGES (implement now):
258 1. [Action] — cost: $[X] — protects: [scenarios] — owner: [role] — deadline: [date]
259 2. [Action] — cost: $[X] — protects: [scenarios] — owner: [role] — deadline: [date]
260 3. [Action] — cost: $[X] — protects: [scenarios] — owner: [role] — deadline: [date]
261
262RECOMMENDED DECISION:
263 [One paragraph: what to do, in what order, and why]
264
265REVIEW DATE: [When to re-run this analysis — typically 90 days or after any variable shifts]
266```
267
268---
269
270## Common Scenarios by Company Stage
271
272### Seed Stage
273- Co-founder departure + product misses launch deadline
274- Runway runs out + bridge terms are predatory
275- Key technical hire falls through + competitor ships first
276
277### Series A
278- Miss ARR target + fundraise delayed
279- Top customer churns + competitor raises large round
280- Key engineer leaves + critical feature deadline
281
282### Series B+
283- Market contraction + burn multiple spikes above 3x
284- Lead investor wants strategic pivot + team resists
285- Regulatory change + product requires rearchitecture
286
287---
288
289## War Room Ground Rules
290
2911. **Maximum 3 variables per scenario.** More is noise. Model the ones that actually matter.
2922. **Quantify or estimate.** "Revenue drops" is not useful. "$420K ARR at risk over 60 days" is. Use ranges if uncertain.
2933. **Don't stop at first-order effects.** The real damage is always in the cascade.
2944. **Model recovery, not just impact.** Every scenario must have a "what we do" path.
2955. **Separate base case from sensitivity.** Don't conflate "what probably happens" with "what could happen."
2966. **3-4 scenarios per planning cycle.** More creates analysis paralysis.
2977. **Review every 90 days.** Probabilities and variables change. Stale scenarios give false comfort.
2988. **No judgment-free zone.** People must feel safe naming ugly scenarios.
299
300---
301
302## Related Skills
303
304| Skill | Use When |
305|-------|----------|
306| **ceo-advisor** | Strategic decisions that scenarios inform |
307| **cfo-advisor** | Financial modeling for scenario impacts |
308| **coo-advisor** | Operational contingency planning |
309| **internal-narrative** | Communicating scenario outcomes to stakeholders |
310| **cs-onboard** | Company context that feeds scenario variables |
311
312---
313
314## Troubleshooting
315
316| Problem | Likely Cause | Resolution |
317|---------|-------------|------------|
318| Scenarios feel too abstract to act on | Variables not specific or quantified enough | Require dollar amounts, percentages, and timelines for every variable; "revenue drops" is not actionable, "$420K ARR at risk over 60 days" is |
319| Team generates only obvious, low-probability scenarios | Conformity bias; not applying Shell scenario planning method of challenging mental models | Use inversion technique: "What would guarantee our failure?"; bring in external perspective; reference industry-specific historical precedents |
320| Cascade mapping stops at first-order effects | Facilitator not pushing past immediate consequences | Require minimum 3 levels of cascade for each variable; use "and then what?" prompting for each domain impact |
321| Hedges identified but never implemented | No ownership, deadline, or cost attached | Every hedge must have: cost estimate, owner name, deadline, and status tracking; review in weekly leadership meeting |
322| War room sessions take too long (> 4 hours) | Too many variables or trying to model every scenario | Enforce maximum 3 variables and 3-4 scenarios per session; use severity matrix to focus on highest-impact combinations |
323| Early warning signals not being monitored | Signals assigned but not integrated into existing reporting | Add signals to existing dashboards and weekly scorecards; assign specific person to monitor each signal |
324| Participants reluctant to name worst-case scenarios | Fear of being seen as negative or alarmist | Establish ground rules explicitly; cite Shell's experience: "the value is in surfacing what others won't say"; reward naming hard truths |
325
326---
327
328## Success Criteria
329
330- Each scenario session produces exactly 3 variables, 3 severity levels, and a cascade map with interruption points identified
331- Early warning signals are specific enough to be monitored: observable, leading, and actionable with defined thresholds
332- Hedges are costed, owned, and have deadlines within 7 days of the war room session
333- At least one hedge per scenario is implemented (not just planned) within 30 days
334- Scenario review conducted every 90 days with probability updates based on new information
335- When an early warning signal fires, the pre-planned response is executed within the defined timeline
336- War room output is concise enough for board consumption: one-page summary per scenario
337
338---
339
340## Scope & Limitations
341
342- **In scope:** Multi-variable scenario construction, cascade modeling across all business functions, severity matrix analysis, early warning signal design, hedge strategy with cost-benefit analysis, scenario review cadence
343- **Out of scope:** Single-variable financial sensitivity analysis (use CFO Advisor stress testing); technical failure mode analysis (use engineering incident planning); routine project risk assessment (use project management frameworks); insurance and risk transfer (use specialized broker)
344- **Limitation:** Scenario probabilities are subjective estimates, not actuarial calculations; value is in preparedness, not prediction accuracy
345- **Limitation:** Framework assumes scenarios are independent or correlated; black swan events by definition are not modelable
346- **Limitation:** Cascade mapping is based on common organizational patterns; unique company structures may have different cascade paths
347- **Limitation:** Maximum 3 variables per scenario is a deliberate constraint; more variables create analysis paralysis, not better insight
348
349---
350
351## Integration Points
352
353| Skill | Integration | Data Flow |
354|-------|-------------|-----------|
355| `ceo-advisor` | Strategic decisions informed by scenario analysis | War room scenarios → CEO decision inputs |
356| `cfo-advisor` | Financial modeling for scenario impacts and hedge costs | War room financial impacts → CFO stress test models |
357| `coo-advisor` | Operational contingency planning and cascade interruption | War room cascade map → COO contingency plans |
358| `executive-mentor` | Pre-mortem failure modes feed into scenario variables | Mentor failure modes → War room variables |
359| `internal-narrative` | Crisis scenarios require pre-built communication plans | War room crisis scenarios → Narrative crisis templates |
360| `org-health-diagnostic` | Health dimension scores surface scenario variables | Health red flags → War room variable candidates |
361| `strategic-alignment` | Scenario outcomes may require strategic realignment | War room outcomes → Alignment reassessment |
362
363---
364
365## Python Tools
366
367| Tool | Purpose | Usage |
368|------|---------|-------|
369| `scripts/scenario_builder.py` | Build structured scenarios with variables, probabilities, detection signals, and severity levels | `python scripts/scenario_builder.py --name "Customer Concentration Risk" --variable "Top customer churns" --probability 20 --impact 500000 --timeline 90 --json` |
370| `scripts/impact_matrix_calculator.py` | Calculate compound impact across multiple variables with severity matrix and cascade risk scoring | `python scripts/impact_matrix_calculator.py --variables "churn:500000:0.2" "fundraise_delay:0:0.3" "key_departure:0:0.15" --arr 2000000 --runway-months 14 --json` |
371| `scripts/decision_tree_analyzer.py` | Build and evaluate decision trees with expected value calculations for strategic options | `python scripts/decision_tree_analyzer.py --decision "Enter Japan market" --option "Direct:0.6:2000000:-500000" --option "Partnership:0.75:1000000:-200000" --option "Wait:1.0:0:0" --json` |