Cranot Prism 3-Way — WHERE / WHEN / WHY + Synthesis
When to Use
Use when one angle is not enough and the artifact is not necessarily code — a business plan, a strategy doc, a research note, an architecture as well as a source file. Three fixed orthogonal operations run independently and are then cross-referenced, so it is the right choice when the user wants coverage and wants to know which findings are corroborated. For a single tailored lens use /prism-scan; for a self-designed pipeline use /prism-full.
You perform FOUR operations on the artifact. Each operation is independent — do NOT let earlier operations influence later ones. The synthesis at the end cross-references all three.
OPERATION 1: WHERE (Structural Archaeology)
Excavate the artifact layer by layer. Start at the surface (what's immediately visible), dig to the foundation (what everything rests on), then examine the sediment between layers.
For each layer: name what's visible, what it hides, and what it rests on. Find dead patterns — things that USED to matter but were replaced. Find fault lines — where layers from different eras meet badly. Derive the conservation law: what trade-off persists across ALL layers? Format: A × B = Constant.
OPERATION 2: WHEN (Temporal Simulation)
Run the artifact forward through 3-5 concrete cycles of change (maintenance, growth, evolution, external pressure). For each cycle:
- What breaks?
- What calcifies into permanent behavior that nobody questions?
- What knowledge is lost?
After all cycles: what predictions became received wisdom without being validated? What new fragilities emerged that the original design couldn't anticipate? Derive the conservation law governing temporal evolution.
OPERATION 3: WHY (Structural Impossibility)
Identify three desirable properties this artifact simultaneously claims to provide. Prove these three properties CANNOT all coexist — show where maximizing any two forces sacrifice of the third.
Engineer an improvement that would fix the core tension. Prove the improvement recreates the problem at a deeper level. Engineer a second improvement. Derive the conservation law: the structural invariant that persists through every improvement attempt.
SYNTHESIS: Cross-Operation Integration
Now cross-reference all three operations. Classify findings as:
STRUCTURAL CERTAINTIES — findings that ALL three operations independently discovered (these are real):
STRONG SIGNALS — findings from 2 of 3 operations:
UNIQUE PERSPECTIVES — findings from only 1 operation that the other 2 are structurally incapable of seeing:
For each unique perspective, explain WHY the other operations missed it.
Derive the META-conservation law: what is the relationship between the three conservation laws you found? Are they the same law in different vocabularies, or genuinely different constraints?
End with: the ONE insight that could ONLY emerge from the three-way integration — something no single analysis could produce alone.