8020 Analysis

80/20 Analysis

Find the vital 20% that generates 80% of results. Kill, delegate, or automate the rest.

Purpose

Apply Pareto principle systematically to identify high-leverage activities and eliminate low-impact busy work. Transform scattered effort into ruthless focus.

Core principle: Not all effort is equal. Most results come from a small fraction of inputs.

When to Use

Auto-triggers:

• "Too many priorities"
• "What should I focus on?"
• "Optimize [process/product/time]"
• "Cut the fat"
• "Simplify"
• "Which [X] matters most?"

Manual triggers:

• "80/20 analysis on [domain]"
• "Pareto my [features/channels/time/customers]"
• "What's high leverage here?"
• "Focus filter for [X]"

Use when:

• Scattered across too many efforts
• Low productivity despite high activity
• Need to make hard prioritization decisions
• Resource constraints require cuts
• Unclear what's actually working

Analysis Domains

1. Product Features

Question: Which features drive 80% of value/usage/satisfaction?

Inputs needed:

• List of all features
• Usage data (if available) OR user feedback
• Development cost per feature
• Maintenance burden per feature

Output: Focus on vital features, deprecate rarely-used complexity

2. Marketing Channels

Question: Which channels produce 80% of leads/conversions/revenue?

Inputs needed:

• List of all channels (content, ads, email, social, etc.)
• Performance metrics per channel
• Cost/effort per channel
• Quality of leads per channel

Output: Double down on working channels, cut waste

3. Time Allocation

Question: Which activities produce 80% of results?

Inputs needed:

• How you currently spend time (rough % breakdown)
• Impact of each activity (revenue/progress/satisfaction)
• What could be delegated/automated
• What's pure waste

Output: Restructure time toward high-leverage activities

4. Customer Segments

Question: Which 20% of customers generate 80% of revenue/referrals/satisfaction?

Inputs needed:

• Customer list or segments
• Revenue per customer/segment
• Support burden per customer/segment
• Referral rate per segment

Output: Focus on best-fit customers, fire bad-fit

5. Content Topics

Question: Which topics drive 80% of engagement/growth/conversions?

Inputs needed:

• Content pieces or topic categories
• Engagement metrics (views, shares, comments)
• Conversion metrics (if applicable)
• Creation effort per piece

Output: Create more of what works, stop what doesn't

6. SKU/Product Portfolio

Question: Which products generate 80% of revenue/profit?

Inputs needed:

• Product list
• Revenue per product
• Profit margin per product
• Operational complexity per product

Output: Focus portfolio, kill underperformers

Execution Modes

INTAKE CONTRACT (Required Before Analysis)

Specify analysis domain:

domain: [features/channels/time/customers/content/products/other]
items: [List all items to analyze - minimum 5, maximum 50]
metric: [What defines "impact" - revenue/users/satisfaction/time-saved]
current_state: [How resources currently allocated]
constraints: [What can't be changed - contracts, commitments, etc.]

CRITICAL: Data State Declaration (Per Item)

For EACH item, declare:

data_type: [exact | estimated | unknown]
confidence: [high | medium | low]

Data Type Definitions:

EXACT: You have actual metrics

• Example: Feature has 2,847 monthly active users (from analytics)
• Example: Channel generated 45 leads last month (tracked)
• Example: Activity takes 4.2 hours/week (time-tracked)

ESTIMATED: You have reasonable estimate, no hard data

• Example: Feature probably used by ~60% of users (gut + feedback)
• Example: Channel generates maybe 20-30 leads/month (rough)
• Example: Activity takes about 3-5 hours/week (estimated)

UNKNOWN: No data, pure guess

• Example: New feature, no usage data yet
• Example: Never tracked this metric
• Example: Can't estimate with any confidence

Percent-Math Rules (Enforced):

IF data_type = exact:
  → Allow "Contribution: X%" and "Cumulative: Y%"
  → Show precise percentages

IF data_type = estimated:
  → Show rank + score only
  → Show cumulative as "~X% (approx)"
  → Flag with confidence level

IF data_type = unknown:
  → NO percent math allowed
  → Output "Needs measurement plan"
  → Cannot calculate contribution without data

Minimum Viable Dataset:

If you have NO data on any items: → Run QUALITATIVE 80/20 (impact vs effort vs alignment) → Label clearly: "QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS - NO HARD DATA" → Output measurement plan as primary deliverable

If ANY input is unknown, ASK before proceeding. Do not guess.

CRITICAL: Unit of Analysis Check (Prevents Apples-to-Oranges)

Problem: 80/20 fails when items aren't comparable.

Bad example:

• "YouTube" (channel) vs "write 1 blog post" (tactic)
• "Product line" vs "single SKU"
• "Trading" (activity) vs "check email" (task)

Normalization Rule (ENFORCED):

Items must be same abstraction layer.

If mixed layers detected:

1. STOP analysis
2. Force re-bucketing:
   • Group items into comparable categories first
   • Score categories
   • Then drill into top category if needed

Bucketing Process:

Step 1: Identify abstraction layers
[List all items]

Step 2: Detect mixed layers
Example:
- Items 1-5: Activities (product dev, trading, content)
- Items 6-8: Tasks (email, meetings, admin)
- Items 9-10: Projects (launch X, build Y)

MIXED LAYERS DETECTED → Cannot compare directly

Step 3: Re-bucket into single layer
Option A: Bucket UP (aggregate tasks into activities)
Option B: Bucket DOWN (break activities into tasks)
Option C: Pick one layer, exclude others

Step 4: Confirm comparable items
All items now at same abstraction level?
→ Proceed with analysis

Auto-trigger bucketing if >15 items:

When item count >15: → Ask: "These items seem varied. Should I bucket into categories first?" → Categories reduce noise, clarify vital few → Then drill into top category for detail

FAST MODE (Default - 5-10 minutes)

Use when: Quick focus decision, single domain, clear metrics

FAST MODE SCORING (Consistent with DEEP):

For each item, score THREE dimensions:

Impact (0-10): Using impact rubric
Ease (0-10): Inverse of effort (10 = very easy, 1 = very hard)
Alignment (0-10): Strategic fit with core mission

Priority Score = (Impact × Ease × Alignment) / 100

This prevents "high impact but impossible now" from dominating.

Process:

1. Gather inputs (intake contract)
2. Score each item: Impact, Ease, Alignment
3. Calculate Priority Score
4. Sort by Priority Score (not just Impact)
5. Calculate cumulative impact (if data allows)
6. Draw 80% threshold line
7. Assign actions (Focus/Delegate/Automate/Seed/Sunset/Kill)

Output:

80/20 ANALYSIS: [Domain]

VITAL FEW (Focus on these):
1. [Item] - Impact: X/10, Cumulative: Y%
2. [Item] - Impact: X/10, Cumulative: Y%
3. [Item] - Impact: X/10, Cumulative: Y%
─────── 80% THRESHOLD ───────

TRIVIAL MANY (Delegate/Automate/Kill):
4. [Item] - Impact: X/10 → [Action]
5. [Item] - Impact: X/10 → [Action]
...

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
Focus: [Top 3 items - do more]
Delegate: [Items that could be handed off]
Automate: [Items that could be systematized]
Kill: [Items producing <2% impact]

EXPECTED IMPACT: [X]% of results from [Y]% of effort

DEEP MODE (15-30 minutes)

Use when: Complex portfolio, multiple metrics, strategic decisions

DEEP MODE INTAKE (Additional Required Fields):

For each item, gather:

impact_score: [0-10 using rubric]
effort_estimate: [hours/week OR dev-days OR low/med/high]
maintenance_cost: [low/medium/high - ongoing burden]
strategic_alignment: [0-10 OR low/med/high - fits core mission?]
optionality: [reversible / irreversible - can you undo this?]
dependencies: 
  - blockers: [what must happen first]
  - downstream: [what depends on this]
  - enables: [what does this unlock]

Combined Priority Formula:

Priority Score = (Impact × Strategic Alignment × Ease) / 100

Where:
- Impact: 0-10 (from rubric)
- Strategic Alignment: 0-10 (mission fit)
- Ease: 10 - Effort (inverse, so low effort = high ease)

Example:
Impact: 8, Alignment: 9, Effort: 3 (so Ease: 7)
Priority = (8 × 9 × 7) / 100 = 5.04

Higher priority score = better candidate for FOCUS

Process:

1. Multi-metric scoring (impact + effort + strategic value)
2. Constraint analysis (what can't be changed)
3. Dependency mapping (what enables what)
4. Opportunity cost calculation
5. Action plan with timelines
6. Risk assessment of cuts

Output:

COMPREHENSIVE 80/20 ANALYSIS
[Detailed multi-section output - see Output Templates]

Impact Scoring Rubric

Critical: NO VIBE-BASED SCORING

Each item scored 0-10 using evidence-based rubric:

For Revenue/Growth Metrics:

10: Produces >30% of total metric
8-9: Produces 15-30% of total
6-7: Produces 5-15% of total
4-5: Produces 1-5% of total
2-3: Produces <1% of total
0-1: Produces negligible/unmeasurable impact

For Time/Efficiency Metrics:

10: Saves >5 hours/week OR eliminates major bottleneck
8-9: Saves 2-5 hours/week OR significant efficiency gain
6-7: Saves 0.5-2 hours/week OR moderate improvement
4-5: Saves <30 min/week OR minor improvement
2-3: No time savings OR marginal benefit
0-1: Actually costs time OR negative value

For Strategic Value:

10: Mission-critical, can't operate without it
8-9: High strategic value, major competitive advantage
6-7: Important but not critical, good differentiation
4-5: Nice to have, minor differentiation
2-3: Minimal strategic value
0-1: No strategic value OR strategic liability

Use actual data when available. If no data, use best evidence-based estimate with confidence flag (LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH).

The 80/20 Principle

Pareto's observation:

• 80% of results come from 20% of causes
• 20% of customers generate 80% of revenue
• 20% of features get 80% of usage
• 20% of time produces 80% of output

Why this matters:

• Most effort is wasted on low-impact activities
• Focusing on vital few multiplies results
• Cutting trivial many frees resources
• Simplicity beats complexity

Common ratios (empirically observed):

• 80/20 (classic)
• 90/10 (extreme cases)
• 70/30 (less concentrated)

Your ratio may vary - the principle remains: Focus on vital few, cut trivial many

Pareto of Pareto (Operational Step)

The vital vital few: 80/20 compounds. 80% of 80% = 64% of results from 4% of inputs.

When to use: After identifying vital few, run second pass for ultra-focus.

Process:

Step 1: Run standard 80/20
Result: 5 items identified as "vital few"

Step 2: Apply 80/20 AGAIN to those 5 items
Question: "Within these 5, which 1-2 produce 80% of the value?"

Step 3: Ultra-focus on vital vital few
Result: 1-2 items = your ONLY priorities

This is where 2-6 hour/day constraints get respected.

Example:

Standard 80/20 on 20 product features:
→ 4 features (20%) drive 80% of value

Pareto of Pareto on those 4:
→ 1 feature (AI Generator) drives 65% of THOSE 4's value

Conclusion: AI Generator = 52% of total product value
→ Ultra-focus: Make AI Generator 3x better
→ Everything else is secondary

Use Pareto of Pareto when:

• Capacity extremely constrained (2-6 hours/day)
• Need ruthless single priority
• Original 80/20 still too scattered (vital few = 5+ items)
• "Focus on 5 things" still feels overwhelming

Output:

PARETO OF PARETO ANALYSIS:

Original vital few: [5 items]

Within vital few, which drives most value?
1. [Item]: 40% of vital few's value = 32% of total
2. [Item]: 30% of vital few's value = 24% of total
3. [Item]: 20% of vital few's value = 16% of total

VITAL VITAL FEW (Ultra-focus):
→ Item 1 is THE priority
→ Item 2 is secondary
→ Items 3-5 are maintenance only

Time allocation recommendation:
- Item 1: 60% of available time
- Item 2: 30% of available time
- Items 3-5: 10% of available time

Four-Action Framework (Updated)

After identifying vital vs trivial, assign actions:

1. FOCUS (Vital Few - Above 80% Line)

Criteria:

• High impact score (7-10)
• In top 20-30% of items
• Cumulative impact reaches 80% threshold

Action:

• Do MORE of this
• Allocate MORE resources
• Protect time for this
• Improve quality/consistency

Examples:

• Feature: Gets 60% of usage → Make it even better
• Channel: Drives 50% of leads → Double down on it
• Customer: Generates 40% of revenue → Give VIP treatment
• Time: Creates 70% of value → Protect this time ruthlessly

2. DELEGATE (Necessary but Low-Leverage)

Criteria:

• Medium impact (4-6)
• Someone else could do it
• Not strategic/differentiating
• Operational necessity

Action:

• Hand off to team member
• Hire contractor/VA
• Outsource to specialist
• Train someone else

Examples:

• Feature: Admin panel (necessary but not differentiating) → Junior dev
• Channel: Social media posting → VA
• Customer: Support tickets → Support team
• Time: Email management → Assistant

3. AUTOMATE (Repetitive Low-Value)

Criteria:

• Low-medium impact (3-6)
• Repetitive/systematic
• Can be automated
• Time sink if done manually

Action:

• Build automation
• Use tools/systems
• Create templates
• Set up workflows

Examples:

• Feature: Batch operations → Add bulk actions
• Channel: Social scheduling → Use automation tool
• Customer: Onboarding → Email sequence
• Time: Reporting → Automated dashboards

4. SEED (Small Bets with Asymmetric Upside)

Criteria:

• Low current impact (0-3) BUT high expected upside
• Experimental probe OR enabling work
• Cheap to run (<2 hours/week or <$100/month)
• Timeboxed validation possible

Action:

• Keep running at minimal investment
• Set validation timeline (14-30 days)
• Define success metric
• Promote to FOCUS or SUNSET based on results

Examples:

• Feature: Beta experiment with 10 users → Test 30 days, measure adoption
• Channel: New platform (TikTok) → 2 hours/week for 3 weeks, track leads
• Customer: Small segment with potential → Monitor for 60 days
• Time: Compounding asset (email list building) → Keep minimal effort

SEED prevents killing the future because it's not paying yet.

5. SUNSET (Phase Out Low-Value)

Criteria:

• Low impact (0-3)
• Consuming resources
• No strategic value
• Has dependencies OR exit costs

Action:

• Stop NEW investment
• Minimal maintenance only
• Planned wind-down with timeline
• Notify stakeholders
• Migration plan if needed

SUNSET Plan Template:

Item: [Name]
Impact score: [X]/10
Why sunset: [Reason]

What breaks if stopped:
- [Dependency 1]
- [Dependency 2]

Who needs notice:
- [Stakeholder 1]
- [Stakeholder 2]

Rollback plan (if needed):
- [How to reverse if critical issue]

Timeline:
- Announce: [Date]
- Stop investment: [Date]
- Minimal maintenance period: [Duration]
- Full sunset: [Date]

Resources freed: [Time/money/attention]

Examples:

• Feature: Used by 2% but has legacy users → 90-day sunset with migration
• Channel: No leads in 6 months but has brand presence → Wind down over 60 days
• Customer: Unprofitable but has contract → Sunset at renewal, don't re-sign
• Time: Commitment with notice period → Announce exit, honor obligation, then stop

6. KILL (Immediate Stop - Subset of SUNSET)

Criteria (ALL must be true):

• Low impact (0-2)
• NO dependencies
• NO contractual obligations
• Low/zero exit cost
• Reversible decision

Action:

• Stop immediately
• No wind-down needed
• No stakeholder management required

Examples:

• Feature: <1% usage, no known users → Remove in next deploy
• Channel: Experimental test that failed → Stop today
• Customer: Free tier user causing support burden → Block immediately
• Time: Voluntary activity with no commitment → Just stop

KILL is rare. Most things need SUNSET.

Reality-Check Integration

Before finalizing recommendations, validate:

Impact Score Validation

For each high-impact claim:
☐ Is this score based on data OR estimation?
☐ If estimation, what's confidence level (LOW/MED/HIGH)?
☐ Could this be wishful thinking?
☐ What evidence supports this score?

If confidence LOW:
→ Flag for testing before major resource shift
→ Add "Validate with 30-day test" recommendation
→ Don't sunset based on LOW-confidence scores alone
→ Output MEASUREMENT PLAN (see below)

MEASUREMENT PLAN (Output When Data is Weak):

When confidence is LOW or data_type is UNKNOWN/ESTIMATED:

MEASUREMENT PLAN for [Item]

What to measure:
- Primary metric: [X]
- Secondary metric: [Y]

How to measure:
- Tool/method: [Analytics, tracking, manual log]
- Frequency: [Daily, weekly, monthly]

Timebox:
Duration: [7 / 14 / 30 days]

Success thresholds:
- PROMOTE to FOCUS if: [Metric > threshold]
- Keep as SEED if: [Metric meets minimum]
- SUNSET if: [Metric < threshold]

Action after measurement:
- Re-run 80/20 with actual data
- Make evidence-based decision

Example:

MEASUREMENT PLAN for TikTok channel

What to measure:
- Primary: Qualified leads (email signups)
- Secondary: Engagement rate

How: UTM tracking + Mixpanel, weekly review

Timebox: 30 days

Thresholds:
- PROMOTE if: >5 qualified leads/week
- SEED if: 2-5 leads/week
- SUNSET if: <2 leads/week

Action: Re-run 80/20 with TikTok data

Constraint Reality-Check

For each "Sunset/Kill" recommendation:
☐ Are there hidden dependencies?
☐ Will this anger important stakeholders?
☐ Is there a contract/commitment?
☐ What's the actual exit cost?
☐ Is this decision REVERSIBLE or IRREVERSIBLE?

DECISION TYPE GATE:

REVERSIBLE decisions (lower bar for action):
- Can undo with <1 week effort
- No burned bridges
- Example: Pause channel, deprecate feature (can restore)
→ Proceed with normal confidence threshold

IRREVERSIBLE decisions (higher bar required):
- Cannot undo OR very expensive to reverse
- Burned bridges, lost relationships
- Example: Fire customer, cancel contract, rebrand
→ Require HIGH confidence + longer validation
→ Mandatory sunset period (can't kill immediately)

If irreversible + confidence <HIGH:
→ Move to SEED with measurement plan
→ Don't kill until you have proof


If constraints exist:
→ Move from KILL to "Phase out over [timeframe]"
→ Or "Minimum viable maintenance" strategy

Capacity Reality-Check

For "Focus" recommendations:
☐ Do you have capacity to do MORE?
☐ What would you need to STOP to make room?
☐ Is "do more" actually possible?

If capacity constrained:
→ Must identify specific items to CUT
→ Can't just add without subtracting
→ Force explicit tradeoffs

Integration with Other Skills

Strategist Integration

80/20 identifies WHAT to focus on
→ Strategist determines SEQUENCE

Workflow:
1. 80/20: "Focus on features A, B, C"
2. Strategist: "Build in order: B → A → C (B enables A)"

Why both needed:

• 80/20 filters to vital few
• Strategist sequences the vital few for maximum leverage

Auditor Integration

Auditor detects DRIFT patterns
→ 80/20 quantifies WASTE

Workflow:
1. Auditor: "You're scattered across 12 initiatives"
2. 80/20: "2 initiatives create 75% of results, kill 8"

Why both needed:

• Auditor diagnoses the disease (scattered focus)
• 80/20 prescribes the cure (ruthless prioritization)

Reality-Check Integration

80/20 recommends FOCUS areas
→ Reality-Check validates CLAIMS

Workflow:
1. 80/20: "Channel X drives 60% of leads" (HIGH impact)
2. Reality-Check: "Is that actually true? Show data."
3. If validated → Focus. If not → Re-score.

Why both needed:

• 80/20 makes focus decisions
• Reality-Check prevents focus on wrong things

Product Spec Integration

80/20 identifies vital FEATURES
→ Product spec skill builds product around them

Workflow:
1. 80/20: "Features X, Y drive 80% of value"
2. Product spec: "Build v2.0 doubling down on X and Y"

Output Templates

FAST MODE Output

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
80/20 ANALYSIS: [Domain]
Metric: [What we're optimizing for]
Items analyzed: [N]
Data quality: [Exact / Estimated / Mixed / Qualitative]
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

VITAL FEW (Focus on these):

1. [Item Name]
   Impact: [X]/10, Ease: [Y]/10, Alignment: [Z]/10
   Priority Score: [Score]
   Contribution: [Y]% of total [IF exact data]
   OR Rank: #1 (estimated) [IF estimated data]
   Cumulative: [Z]% [IF exact] OR ~Z% (approx) [IF estimated]
   Data state: [exact/estimated - confidence: HIGH/MED/LOW]
   Action: FOCUS - [Specific recommendation]

2. [Item Name]
   Impact: [X]/10, Ease: [Y]/10, Alignment: [Z]/10
   Priority Score: [Score]
   Contribution: [Y]% [IF exact] OR Rank: #2 [IF estimated]
   Cumulative: [Z]% [IF exact] OR ~Z% [IF estimated]
   Data state: [exact/estimated - confidence: HIGH/MED/LOW]
   Action: FOCUS - [Specific recommendation]

[Repeat for top items reaching ~80% threshold]

─────────── 80% THRESHOLD ───────────
[Items above = vital few]
[Items below = trivial many]

DELEGATE/AUTOMATE/SEED/SUNSET:

[Item Name]
   Impact: [X]/10, Ease: [Y]/10, Alignment: [Z]/10
   Priority Score: [Score]
   Action: DELEGATE - [To whom/what]

[Item Name]
   Impact: [X]/10, Ease: [Y]/10, Alignment: [Z]/10
   Priority Score: [Score]
   Action: AUTOMATE - [Tool/process]

[Item Name]
   Impact: [X]/10, Ease: [Y]/10, Alignment: [Z]/10
   Priority Score: [Score]
   Action: SEED - [Test for 14-30 days, measure X, threshold: Y]

[Item Name]
   Impact: [X]/10, Ease: [Y]/10, Alignment: [Z]/10
   Priority Score: [Score]
   Decision type: [Reversible / Irreversible]
   Action: SUNSET - [Timeline: announce X, wind down Y, full sunset Z]

[Item Name] (RARE - only if no dependencies + reversible)
   Impact: [X]/10, Ease: [Y]/10, Alignment: [Z]/10
   Priority Score: [Score]
   Decision type: Reversible
   Action: KILL - [Stop immediately]

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
SUMMARY
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

PARETO RATIO: [X]% of items → [Y]% of results [IF exact data]
OR: Top [X] items = vital few [IF estimated]

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:

FOCUS (Do More):
- [Item 1]: [Specific action]
- [Item 2]: [Specific action]

DELEGATE (Hand Off):
- [Item]: [To whom]

AUTOMATE (Systematize):
- [Item]: [Tool/process]

SEED (Test & Measure):
- [Item]: [14-30 day test, measure X, decide based on threshold]

SUNSET (Wind Down):
- [Item]: [Timeline + stakeholder plan]

KILL (Immediate Stop - if applicable):
- [Item]: [Only if reversible + no dependencies]

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
EXPECTED IMPACT
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Before: [N] items consuming resources evenly
After: Focus on [X] vital items (Y% of total)

Resource freed: [Z]% (from sunset/automated items)
Expected results: [IF exact data: X% from Y% effort]
                  [IF estimated: Higher leverage allocation (qualitative)]

Confidence: [HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW]
Basis: [Exact data / Estimates / Mixed]

[IF LOW confidence on key items:]
MEASUREMENT PLANS REQUIRED:
- [Item]: Measure [X] for [Y] days
- [Item]: Measure [X] for [Y] days

Resource freed: [Z]% (from killed/automated items)
Expected results: [A]% of current output from [B]% of effort

Confidence: [LOW / MEDIUM / HIGH]
Basis: [Data / Estimation / Mixed]

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
NEXT STEPS
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

IMMEDIATE (This Week):
1. [Action]
2. [Action]

SHORT-TERM (This Month):
1. [Action]
2. [Action]

ONGOING:
- Monitor: [Key metric to track]
- Re-analyze: [When to re-run 80/20]

DEEP MODE Output

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
COMPREHENSIVE 80/20 ANALYSIS
Domain: [X]
Date: [Date]
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

## 1. CURRENT STATE ANALYSIS

Total items: [N]
Current resource allocation: [Roughly equal / Heavily weighted / Mixed]

Distribution analysis:
- Top 20% of items contribute: [X]% of results
- Middle 30% contribute: [Y]% of results  
- Bottom 50% contribute: [Z]% of results

Pareto ratio: [X/Y] (e.g., 82/18, 75/25, 90/10)

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

## 2. MULTI-METRIC SCORING

[Item Name]
- Impact Score: [X]/10 ([Metric 1])
- Effort Score: [Y]/10 (1=high effort, 10=low effort)
- Strategic Value: [Z]/10
- Dependencies: [What depends on this / What this depends on]
- Combined Score: [(Impact × Strategic) / Effort] = [Score]

[Repeat for each item]

Ranking by combined score:
1. [Item] - Score: [X]
2. [Item] - Score: [Y]
...

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

## 3. CONSTRAINT ANALYSIS

Items that CANNOT be changed:
- [Item]: [Reason - contract/legal/dependency]
- [Item]: [Reason]

Items with HIGH exit costs:
- [Item]: [Exit cost - $X or Y hours or Z risk]

Items with dependencies:
- [Item]: Required by [other items]
- [Item]: Enables [other items]

Strategic constraints:
- [Competitive requirement]
- [Market expectation]
- [Platform requirement]

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

## 4. OPPORTUNITY COST ANALYSIS

Current allocation:
- [Item 1]: [X]% of resources → [Y]% of results
- [Item 2]: [X]% of resources → [Y]% of results

Opportunity cost of low-impact items:
- Keeping [Item]: Costs [X hours/week]
  - Could instead: [Alternative use of resources]
  - Potential gain: [Estimated impact]

Highest opportunity costs:
1. [Item] - [Resource cost] could produce [Alternative value]
2. [Item] - [Resource cost] could produce [Alternative value]

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

## 5. DETAILED ACTION PLAN

FOCUS TIER (Vital Few):

[Item 1]
Current state: [Description]
Target state: [What success looks like]
Actions:
- [Specific action 1]
- [Specific action 2]
Timeline: [Dates]
Resources needed: [What's required]
Success metric: [How to measure]

[Repeat for each focus item]

─────────────────────────────────────────

DELEGATE TIER:

[Item]
Why delegate: [Reason]
Delegate to: [Person/role/service]
Transition plan:
- Week 1: [Step]
- Week 2: [Step]
Handoff complete: [Date]
Monitoring: [How to ensure quality]

[Repeat for each delegate item]

─────────────────────────────────────────

AUTOMATE TIER:

[Item]
Current manual process: [Description]
Automation approach: [Tool/system/workflow]
Implementation:
- Setup: [Time/cost]
- Testing: [Timeline]
- Launch: [Date]
Expected time savings: [Hours/week]
ROI timeline: [Breakeven point]

[Repeat for each automate item]

─────────────────────────────────────────

KILL TIER:

[Item]
Why kill: [Impact score + opportunity cost]
Exit plan:
- Announce: [Date]
- Wind down: [Process]
- Fully sunset: [Date]
Affected stakeholders: [Who to notify]
Migration plan (if needed): [Alternative for users]
Resources freed: [Time/money/attention]

[Repeat for each kill item]

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

## 6. RISK ASSESSMENT

Risks of recommended changes:

HIGH RISK:
- [Change]: [Potential downside]
  Mitigation: [How to reduce risk]

MEDIUM RISK:
- [Change]: [Potential downside]
  Mitigation: [How to reduce risk]

LOW RISK:
- [Changes with minimal downside]

Validation tests recommended:
- [Item]: Run 30-day test before full commit
- [Item]: A/B test before killing completely

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

## 7. IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE

WEEK 1:
- [Kill easiest waste]
- [Start automation for X]
- [Protect focus time for vital items]

WEEK 2-4:
- [Delegate handoffs complete]
- [Automation testing]
- [Increase focus on top 3]

MONTH 2:
- [Full transition complete]
- [Re-measure impact]
- [Iterate based on results]

QUARTERLY:
- Re-run 80/20 analysis
- Adjust based on new data
- Prevent drift back to scattered

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

## 8. SUCCESS METRICS

Track these to measure impact:

Primary metric: [What you're optimizing]
- Baseline: [Current state]
- Target: [After implementation]
- Measure: [How often]

Resource utilization:
- Before: [X]% of time on vital items
- Target: [Y]% of time on vital items

Focus ratio:
- Before: Scattered across [N] items
- Target: Focused on [M] items

Results per effort:
- Before: [Metric] per [effort unit]
- Target: [Metric] per [effort unit]
- Expected lift: [X-Y]%

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT:

Score accuracy: [HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW]
Basis: [Actual data / Estimates / Mixed]

Data gaps:
- [What we don't know]
- [How to get data]

Recommendation strength:
- STRONG (confident): [Actions with high confidence]
- MODERATE (test first): [Actions needing validation]
- WEAK (speculative): [Actions based on assumptions]

Domain-Specific Examples

Example: Product Features

Scenario: SaaS product with 25 features, unclear what matters

Analysis:

1. List all 25 features
2. Score by usage data (Google Analytics, Mixpanel)
3. Rank by impact
4. Find 80% threshold

Typical result:

• 5 features (20%) drive 85% of usage
• 8 features (32%) account for next 10%
• 12 features (<5% usage each) = kill candidates

Actions:

• Focus: Improve top 5 features
• Delegate: Maintain middle 8 (junior dev)
• Kill: Deprecate bottom 12

Example: Time Allocation

Scenario: Operator spread across 10 activities, low output

Analysis:

1. List all time allocations
2. Score by output (revenue, progress, satisfaction)
3. Calculate time vs impact ratio
4. Rebalance ruthlessly

Typical result:

• 2 activities (20% of time) produce 70% of results
• 3 activities (30% of time) produce 20% of results
• 5 activities (50% of time) produce 10% of results

Actions:

• Focus: 60% of time on top 2
• Delegate: Middle 3 to team
• Kill: Bottom 5 completely

Example: Marketing Channels

Scenario: 8 marketing channels, uneven results

Analysis:

1. List all channels
2. Score by leads + conversion quality
3. Factor in cost per channel
4. ROI calculation

Typical result:

• 2 channels drive 75% of qualified leads
• 3 channels produce leads but low quality
• 3 channels produce nothing

Actions:

• Focus: Double budget on top 2
• Automate: Middle 3 with tools
• Kill: Bottom 3 immediately

Critical Reminders

1. Data state declaration mandatory - Flag each item: exact/estimated/unknown + confidence level
2. Percent-math gating - Only allow precise % if data_type=exact, otherwise use ranks/approximations
3. Priority formula consistent - Impact × Ease × Alignment in FAST and DEEP, not just Impact alone
4. DEEP mode intake complete - Effort, maintenance, strategic alignment, optionality, dependencies required
5. SUNSET not KILL - Most things need wind-down, KILL only if no dependencies + reversible
6. SEED bucket protects future - Don't kill experiments/enabling work, timebox them with measurement plan
7. Unit of analysis check - Items must be same abstraction layer, force bucketing if mixed
8. Auto-bucket if >15 items - Reduce noise, clarify vital few through categorization
9. Decision type gate - Reversible = lower bar, Irreversible = HIGH confidence + sunset required
10. Measurement plan for weak data - Output what/how/when/thresholds when confidence LOW
11. Pareto of Pareto operational - Second pass on vital few finds vital vital few (64% from 4%)
12. Integration is key - 80/20 filters, Strategist sequences, Auditor diagnoses, Reality-Check validates
13. Constraints respected - Contracts, commitments, dependencies = SUNSET not KILL
14. Re-run quarterly - Priorities shift, re-analyze with fresh data
15. Sunset is scheduled, not emotional - Timeline-based wind-down, not courage-based decision
16. Focus requires subtraction - Can't add without cutting, capacity math is real

80/20 Analysis v1.1: Mechanical, data-aware, sunset-focused filter for ruthless prioritization.