tools-only Capability: Strategic Planning
Hypothesis-driven strategic thinking as a decision lens. A central hypothesis anchors the project and filters every decision, scope choice, and priority call.
What It Is
Strategic planning in the companion framework is not "make a plan and execute it." It is the discipline of maintaining a living strategic hypothesis that evolves as understanding deepens and acts as the decision filter for everything the companion does.
The pattern comes from the GreenChef case: discover the hypothesis first, test it cheaply, use it to filter every feature, scope, and priority decision. A product that tries to be everything for everyone is a product with no strategy. The hypothesis forces specificity.
The Strategy-as-Anchor Pattern
Every companion project that uses strategic planning has a strategy anchor — a central hypothesis or set of principles that filters all downstream decisions.
The anchor is:
- Living — It evolves as evidence accumulates. Version 1 is speculative. Version 5 is tested.
- Central — Every command should be aware of it. It is not one context file among many — it is THE context file.
- Testable — A hypothesis that cannot be tested is not a hypothesis. It is a hope.
- Falsifiable — The companion should actively seek evidence that could disprove the hypothesis, not just confirm it.
What the Anchor Looks Like
For a product manager companion, the anchor is a product hypothesis:
"We believe [specific user segment] will [specific behavior] because [specific reason], and we can test this by [specific test]."
For a game designer companion, the anchor is a set of design pillars:
"This game is about [core experience]. Every mechanic must serve [pillar 1], [pillar 2], or [pillar 3]. If a mechanic doesn't serve a pillar, it doesn't ship."
For a strategic companion, the anchor is a business hypothesis:
"We believe [market positioning] will [competitive advantage] because [differentiated insight], measured by [specific metrics]."
When to Use
| Companion Type | Role of Strategic Planning | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Product Manager | Central — the hypothesis IS the methodology | Core |
| Game Designer | Supporting — design pillars as strategy anchor for market fit | Common |
| Strategic Companion | Central — business strategy as the hypothesis | Core |
| Software Developer | Light — ADRs serve a similar function at the architecture level | Rare |
| Writing Mentor | Minimal — craft development does not typically use hypothesis-driven strategy | Rare |
Hypothesis Lifecycle
Hypotheses are not born validated. They mature through stages.
Speculative
The hypothesis is an initial guess. It has not been tested or even fully articulated. It may contain vague terms, undefined user segments, or untestable claims.
Companion behavior: Challenge the hypothesis aggressively. Push for specificity. Ask "Who exactly?" and "How would we test this?" and "What would prove this wrong?"
Example:
"We think small businesses will want our product."
Companion: "Which small businesses? A 3-person design studio and a 50-person manufacturing company are both 'small businesses' but have nothing in common. Which one are you picturing?"
Proposed
The hypothesis is specific enough to be tested. It names a user segment, a behavior, a reason, and a test. It may not yet have evidence.
Companion behavior: Shift from challenging the hypothesis to designing tests. Ask "What's the cheapest way to test this?" and "What evidence would make you abandon this?"
Example:
"We believe solo founders building AI products will pay for a PM thinking partner because they lack a co-founder to challenge their thinking. We can test this by offering 5 free sessions and measuring re-engagement."
Tested
Evidence has been gathered for or against the hypothesis. The hypothesis may have been refined based on what was learned.
Companion behavior: Analyze evidence. Surface contradictions between hypothesis and evidence. Propose refinements. Track what was learned.
Example:
"3 of 5 solo founders re-engaged. But the 2 who didn't said the PM voice was too aggressive for their stage — they needed encouragement first, challenge later. Refining: segment by founder maturity."
Validated
The hypothesis has survived multiple tests and the evidence supports it. It becomes the decision lens with high confidence.
Companion behavior: Use the hypothesis confidently as a filter. When the user proposes a feature, scope change, or priority shift, evaluate it against the validated hypothesis. Flag anything that does not serve it.
Key Principle: Every Command Should Be Hypothesis-Aware
The strategy anchor is not just for strategic commands. It should influence every interaction.
/exploreshould filter exploration topics against the hypothesis: "This is interesting, but does it serve our hypothesis?"/processshould connect meeting insights to the hypothesis: "This customer said X, which [supports | challenges | is orthogonal to] our hypothesis."/specshould scope features against the hypothesis: "This feature serves hypothesis pillar 2 directly. This other feature is nice-to-have but doesn't serve any pillar."/synthesizeshould evaluate accumulated insights against the hypothesis: "Three of your last five insights point to a different user segment than your hypothesis targets. Worth revisiting?"
Evidence Tracking
Strategic planning requires tracking evidence for and against the hypothesis.
Evidence Types
| Type | Source | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Direct | User research, customer conversations | "5 of 7 users said they would pay for this" |
| Indirect | Market signals, competitor behavior | "Competitor X just pivoted away from this segment" |
| Contradictory | Any source | "Our hypothesis says users want simplicity, but power users keep asking for advanced features" |
| Absent | Expected evidence that didn't appear | "We expected sign-ups from the launch. None came." |
The Contradiction Discipline
Contradictory evidence is the most valuable. Companions must surface it immediately and prominently — not bury it in a summary.
Pattern:
"Your hypothesis says [X]. But this meeting transcript contains [Y], which directly contradicts that. Three options: (1) the hypothesis is wrong, (2) this evidence is an outlier, (3) the hypothesis needs refinement. Which do you think?"
Relationship to Other Capabilities
Reverse Prompting
Reverse prompting discovers the hypothesis. Strategic planning maintains and tests it. The seeding phase is where the hypothesis first emerges — through questions, not through generation.
Context Ecosystem
The hypothesis lives in context/product/hypothesis.md (or equivalent persona-specific location). It is a living document that evolves over time. Evidence is tracked alongside it.
Meeting Processing
Meetings are a primary source of evidence for or against the hypothesis. The meeting processing capability should automatically evaluate new information against the current hypothesis.
Anti-Patterns
| Anti-Pattern | Problem | Better Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Untestable hypothesis | "We will build the best product" is not testable | Push for specific, falsifiable claims |
| Hypothesis as mission statement | Static, never challenged, never updated | Living document with version history |
| Confirmation bias | Only tracking supporting evidence | Actively seek and surface contradictions |
| Strategy without evidence | Hypothesis stays speculative forever | Design and run cheap tests |
| Feature-first thinking | Building features without strategy filter | Every feature must serve the hypothesis |
| Hypothesis worship | Refusing to update despite contradictory evidence | Hypotheses are meant to be refined or abandoned |