Deep Analysis

Architectural Analysis

Overview

Execute high-density analysis to transform vague ideas into a verified problem map: constraints, core modules, facts vs assumptions, relationship flows, causal chains, and failure modes. Focus on analysis artifacts that unlock the next workflow step, not a full design.

Style: Code-like, Concise, No "AI explaining itself". Pure signal.

Critical Rules

• NO FLUFF - Output must be dense, actionable, and structured
• VISUALIZE - Use terminal-friendly ASCII maps (->) for structural mappings
• ANALYZE, DON'T BUILD - Prefer maps, drivers, and failure modes over implementation plans unless explicitly requested
• RUTHLESSNESS - Challenge assumptions at every step. Never confirm user biases
• LATTICEWORK - Validate the map with 3-5 lenses; look for convergence/tension/blind spots/surprises
• LANGUAGE - Default output in Simplified Chinese; avoid English abbreviations in node names and labels

Output modes:

• Default: produce sections 0-5.
• Quick map (info-poor/time-boxed): produce 0/1/3/5 + top 3 unknowns that would change the map.

NEVER

• NEVER ship a solution-first plan; produce a map that enables the next step.
• NEVER mix facts and assumptions; label unknowns explicitly or the map lies.
• NEVER include non-CORE modules in the flow map; it hides the real bottleneck.
• NEVER write the flow map as a dense paragraph; it must be laid out line-by-line.
• NEVER use English abbreviations for flow nodes; use clear Chinese nouns instead.
• NEVER exceed terminal constraints (aim <= 80 cols, <= 20 lines) or it becomes unreadable.

The Process

PHASE 0: CALIBRATION (The Anchor)

• Bind constraints strictly.
• If constraints are missing: assume "MVP/Prototype Stage" (low cost, high iteration) and proceed.
• If the prompt starts with a solution: rewrite as "problem statement + constraints" before proceeding.
• Output: One-sentence problem statement + constraint list (incl. explicit unknowns).

PHASE 1: DECOMPOSITION (The Pareto Slice)

• Decompose into modules and interfaces (treat each module as a black box).
• Identify the Pareto CORE (top risk/weight); mark the rest as later.
• Output: CORE module list with 1-line rationale each.

PHASE 2: EXCAVATION (First Principles)

For CORE modules identified in Phase 1:

• Separate facts vs assumptions; name the irreducible constraints/invariants.
• Locate the dominant bottleneck (ask "why not 10x?" to expose limits).
• Output: Compact fact/assumption list per CORE module.

PHASE 3: RE-ARCHITECTING (Structural Evolution)

Reassemble components based on First Principles findings, NOT original assumptions:

• Pipeline: CORE modules -> boundary context -> internal critical path -> prune -> output flow map
• Prune redundant hops found in Phase 2 (keep it minimal, not exhaustive).
• Output: Console-friendly flow map using -> (CORE only, 6-15 lines):
  • Boundary context (vertical chain)
  • Internal critical path (one main chain)

Flow map conventions (ASCII only):

• Use Chinese noun phrases for node names; avoid English abbreviations.
• Prefer the single critical path over full coverage; do not force branches/merges.
• Layout as a vertical chain: one node per line, connect with -> on the next line.
• Keep it readable: <= 80 cols per line, <= 20 lines total.

Template (vertical chain): 边界: 参与者 -> 入口 -> 系统 -> 外部依赖

关键路径: 输入 -> 核心模块 -> 状态/存储 -> 输出

PHASE 4: OSCILLATION (Zoom In/Out)

• Pipeline: macro frame -> latticework check -> key drivers -> causal chains -> leverage points
• Rule: derive top-down hypotheses, validate bottom-up via key driver mechanics
• Macro frame: boundary + lifecycle + stakeholders + metrics + constraints
  • Lifecycle stage: prototype -> growth -> scale -> decline (pick one)
• Latticework check (internal, do NOT expand in output):
  • Assume the role of 查理·芒格.
  • Cross-check with at least 3 mental models: 激励机制, 二阶效应, 机会成本, 安全边际, 能力圈(认知边界).
  • Extract only the synthesized signals for output: 收敛 / 张力 / 空白 / 惊喜
• Key drivers (1-3): mechanism + invariants + stress failures + cost model
• Output:
  • 2-4 causal chains: 微观机制 -> 宏观结果 (标签: 收敛/张力/空白/惊喜)
  • Leverage points (micro changes that shift macro materially)

PHASE 5: INVERSION (The Pre-Mortem)

• Assume the proposed approach has FAILED CATASTROPHICALLY 6 months post-launch.
• Ask "How exactly did it break?" (race conditions, cost explosion, user rejection).
• Use Phase 0 constraints to sharpen the failure story.
• Output: "致命点" (fatal flaws) + "缓解假设" (testable preventions).

Output Format

### 0.约束条件 (假设/给定)
问题: [一句话问题陈述]
约束: [硬约束列表]
未知: [会改变分析结论的关键未知]

### 1.核心模块 (帕累托前 20%)
[模块名]: [一句话说明为何这是核心]
[模块名]: [一句话说明为何这是核心]

### 2.第一性原理真相
[模块A] [根本限制/真相]
[模块B] [根本限制/真相]

### 3.逻辑流程图
控制台风格（使用 `->`，中文节点名，避免英文缩写；每行一个节点）:
边界:
参与者
 -> 入口
 -> 系统
 -> 外部依赖

关键路径:
输入
 -> 核心模块
 -> 状态/存储
 -> 输出

### 4.对齐检查（格栅快速校验）
宏观: [边界/生命周期/参与方/成功指标/硬约束]
关键驱动: [1-3 个主导机制]
格栅结论: 收敛[...]；张力[...]；空白[...]；惊喜[...]
因果链: [微观机制 -> 宏观结果 | 标签: 收敛/张力/空白/惊喜 | 杠杆点: ...]

### 5.事前验尸 (失败检查)
* 最薄弱环节: [具体组件]
* 失败模式: [如何崩溃] -> 缓解假设: [可验证的缓解假设]

Key Principles

• Pareto Focus - Keep CORE only; park the rest
• Fact vs Assumption - Turn debates into checkable statements
• Latticework - Cross-check with 3-5 lenses; synthesize signals
• Causal Mapping - Express micro->macro via chains and leverage points
• Inversion Thinking - Assume failure first, then work backwards
• Terminal First - Use ASCII maps (->) only; no rich diagrams