Helps you create genuinely new products, services, or business models by stripping away industry assumptions and rebuilding from the fundamental human need your innovation must serve. Instead of improving what exists, you discover what SHOULD exist.
Recipe Name: RCP-000-000-006-FIRST-PRINCIPLES-INNOVATOR – First Principles Innovator
RCP-000-000-006-FIRST-PRINCIPLES-INNOVATOR
Create genuinely innovative products, services, or businessmodels by identifying the core human need being served,stripping away industry conventions, and rebuilding fromfundamental value. This recipe guides entrepreneurs throughsystematic innovation that avoids "me too" products anddiscovers breakthrough opportunities others miss.
Requirements
TL;DR
WHAT THIS RECIPE DOES: Helps you create genuinely new products, services, or business models by stripping away industry assumptions and rebuilding from the fundamental human need your innovation must serve. Instead of improving what exists, you discover what SHOULD exist.HOW IT WORKS (10 STEPS): 1. DEFINE TARGET — Pick what you want to innovate (existing product, new offering, or business model) 2. FIND THE CORE NEED — Keep asking "why do they want that?" until you hit a need that cannot be reduced 3. MAP CONVENTIONS — List every standard practice in your industry (delivery, pricing, features, etc.) 4. IDENTIFY TRUTHS — Separate what is actually true from what is merely conventional 5. CHALLENGE EVERYTHING — Test each convention: is it required by fundamentals or just habit? 6. GENERATE INNOVATIONS — Forget existing products and build 3+ radically different concepts from scratch 7. EVALUATE — Score each concept on need alignment, differentiation, feasibility, defensibility, market 8. DESIGN MVP — Create the simplest version that tests your core hypothesis 9. BUILD ROADMAP — Plan validation, development, and scaling phases 10. FOLLOW UP — Deep-dive, generate more concepts, or document what you learnedWHAT MAKES IT DIFFERENT FROM BRAINSTORMING: Regular brainstorming generates ideas WITHIN existing assumptions. This recipe first identifies and removes those assumptions, then generates ideas in a much larger solution space. The results are structurally different, not just variations on a theme.BEST FOR: – Entrepreneurs entering crowded markets – Teams whose products feel commoditized – Anyone who hears "the industry has always done it this way" and wants to challenge that – Strategic planning sessions seeking breakthrough rather than incremental improvementTIME: 45-90 minutesDIFFICULTY: AdvancedWORKS WITH: All CRAFT Flavors + Recipe Runner
How To Start
STEP 1: Define Your Innovation Target
- Identify what you want to innovate on: OPTION A – EXISTING PRODUCT/SERVICE: What product or service do you want to reimagine? What market or industry does it serve? What is your current offering (if any)? OPTION B – NEW OFFERING: What market or industry are you targeting? What problem space interests you? What capabilities or resources do you have? OPTION C – BUSINESS MODEL: What type of business model do you want to create? What value exchange are you exploring? What customer segment are you targeting?Be specific about scope – innovation works best whenfocused on a defined target rather than "everything."
STEP 2: Identify the Core Human Need
- Strip away product features to find the FUNDAMENTALhuman need your innovation must serve.Ask progressively deeper questions: LEVEL 1 – FUNCTIONAL: What does this product/service DO for people? What task does it help them accomplish? What problem does it solve? LEVEL 2 – EMOTIONAL: How does using it make people FEEL? What emotional state are they seeking? What emotional pain are they avoiding? LEVEL 3 – FUNDAMENTAL: What basic human need does this fulfill? (Security, connection, status, growth, autonomy, pleasure, meaning, efficiency, belonging)Keep asking "Why do they want THAT?" until you reacha need that cannot be reduced further.Examples of fundamental needs: – Uber: Not "transportation" but "time freedom" – Instagram: Not "photos" but "social validation" – Netflix: Not "movies" but "effortless escapism"
STEP 3: Map Industry Conventions
- Identify HOW the industry currently serves this need.List every standard practice, common approach, and"best practice" in your target market. DELIVERY CONVENTIONS: How is the product/service typically delivered? What channels are standard? What formats are expected? PRICING CONVENTIONS: How do competitors charge? What pricing models are standard? What is included vs. extra? FEATURE CONVENTIONS: What features does everyone include? What is considered "table stakes"? What features differentiate premium offerings? EXPERIENCE CONVENTIONS: What does the customer journey look like? What touchpoints are standard? What friction is accepted as normal? BUSINESS MODEL CONVENTIONS: How do companies in this space make money? What cost structures are standard? What partnerships are typical?Be thorough – list even the conventions that seemobviously necessary.
STEP 4: Identify Fundamental Truths
- Determine what is ACTUALLY true vs. what is merelyconventional. Focus on: HUMAN BEHAVIOR TRUTHS: What do we know about how humans actually behave? What psychological principles govern decisions? What patterns are universal across cultures/time? PHYSICAL/TECHNICAL TRUTHS: What physical constraints actually exist? What technical capabilities are now available? What has changed since conventions were set? ECONOMIC TRUTHS: What creates actual value for customers? What are the real cost drivers? What would customers pay more/less for? TEMPORAL TRUTHS: What conditions existed when conventions formed? What has changed since then? What will likely change in the next 5 years?For each truth, ask: "Is this truly fundamental, orcould this also be challenged?"
STEP 5: Challenge Every Convention
- Test each industry convention against fundamentals.For EACH convention from Step 3, ask: NECESSITY TEST: "Is this convention REQUIRED to serve the core human need, or is it just how things are currently done?" ORIGIN TEST: "Why does this convention exist? What conditions created it? Do those conditions still apply?" ALTERNATIVE TEST: "If this convention did not exist, what OTHER ways could we serve the same need?" IMPROVEMENT TEST: "Does this convention actually serve the core need WELL, or just adequately?"Categorize each convention: ESSENTIAL: Truly required by fundamentals LEGACY: Exists due to outdated conditions IMITATION: Exists because competitors do it ASSUMPTION: Never questioned, just accepted SUBOPTIMAL: Serves need but not well
STEP 6: Generate First Principles Innovations
- Using ONLY fundamental truths and essential elements,brainstorm radically different approaches. RULE 1: Forget existing products Do not think about what exists. Think only about the core need and fundamental truths. RULE 2: Start from the need Begin with: "A human needs X. Given what we know is fundamentally true, what is the BEST way to serve that need?" RULE 3: Question everything If you catch yourself thinking "but we have to…" – stop and ask if that is fundamental or convention. RULE 4: Generate multiple options Create at least THREE radically different approaches. Push for variety.For each innovation concept: – Describe the core idea – Explain what fundamental truths it builds on – List what conventions it eliminates – Identify what makes it different from existing
STEP 7: Evaluate Innovation Potential
- Assess each first-principles innovation: NEED ALIGNMENT: How directly does this serve the core need? Does it serve the need BETTER than current? Rating: 1-5 DIFFERENTIATION: How different is this from existing options? Would customers immediately see the difference? Rating: 1-5 FEASIBILITY: Can this actually be built/delivered? What capabilities are required? Rating: 1-5 DEFENSIBILITY: Can competitors easily copy this? What creates sustainable advantage? Rating: 1-5 MARKET SIZE: How many people have this core need? Is the market large enough? Rating: 1-5Calculate total score and rank innovations.
STEP 8: Design Minimum Viable Innovation
- For your top innovation concept, design the simplestversion that tests the core hypothesis. CORE HYPOTHESIS: "Customers will prefer [innovation] over [current approach] because [reason tied to fundamental truth]." MINIMUM VIABLE VERSION: What is the simplest form that delivers the core value proposition? Strip away everything not essential to testing the hypothesis. KEY ASSUMPTIONS TO TEST: What must be true for this to work? Which assumptions are riskiest? How can you test them quickly? SUCCESS METRICS: What would prove the innovation works? What specific numbers would validate it? What would indicate failure?
STEP 9: Create Innovation Roadmap
- Plan how to bring the innovation to market: PHASE 1 – VALIDATE (Weeks 1-4): – Build minimum viable version – Test with small customer group – Gather feedback on core value – Decision point: proceed or pivot PHASE 2 – DEVELOP (Months 2-3): – Build full initial version – Refine based on learnings – Establish operations – Begin limited launch PHASE 3 – SCALE (Months 4+): – Expand market reach – Optimize unit economics – Build competitive moats – Iterate based on data
STEP 10: Follow-Up Options
- After completing the innovation process: 1. Deep-dive on core need identification 2. Challenge more industry conventions 3. Generate additional innovation concepts 4. Refine minimum viable version design 5. Detail the innovation roadmap 6. Apply first principles to adjacent area 7. Document learnings for future reference 8. End the session
How AI Reads This Recipe
The AI interprets this recipe as an innovation discoveryprotocol with these key behaviors: FOCUS DEFINITION: AI clarifies scope (product/service/market/model) Ensures innovation target is specific enough Establishes current state baseline NEED EXCAVATION: AI repeatedly asks "why do they want that?" Does not accept surface-level answers Pushes until reaching fundamental human needs (safety, status, belonging, autonomy, mastery) ASSUMPTION MAPPING: AI comprehensively catalogs industry conventions Covers delivery, pricing, features, customers, operations Identifies what "everyone does" without question TRUTH SEPARATION: AI distinguishes real constraints from habits Tests each convention: "Is this physics or tradition?" Creates clear fundamental vs conventional list CONVENTION CHALLENGE: AI asks "Is this the ONLY way?" for each Explores adjacent industries for alternatives Considers what newcomers would do differently Projects forward: "What changes in 10 years?" APPROACH GENERATION: AI generates multiple radical alternatives Uses structured frames (simplify, channel shift, model inversion, customer redefinition) Traces each approach to fundamental foundations MVP AND ROADMAP: AI designs minimum viable test for top approach Creates phased validation and scaling plan Balances ambition with practical testingThe AI maintains an innovation-focused posture, treatingindustry convention as suspect until proven fundamental.
When to Use This Recipe
USE THIS RECIPE WHEN: SEEKING GENUINE INNOVATION: – Want breakthrough, not incremental improvement – Current offerings feel commoditized – Need differentiation competitors cannot copy NEW MARKET ENTRY: – Entering established market as newcomer – Want to avoid "me too" positioning – Looking for unique angle of attack STAGNATION OR DISRUPTION: – Growth has plateaued – Industry is being disrupted – Current model feels outdated STRATEGIC PLANNING: – Annual or quarterly innovation sessions – New product ideation – Business model evaluation SPECIFIC TRIGGERS: – "Our product is just like competitors" – "We are competing on price, not value" – "The industry has always worked this way" – "We need something genuinely different" – "How would we rebuild this from scratch?"DO NOT USE THIS RECIPE WHEN: – Need to fix existing problem (use 005) – Innovation is not the goal (optimization is) – Time pressure requires immediate action – Product-market fit is already strong – Execution, not strategy, is the bottleneckCOMPARE TO OTHER RECIPES: vs FIRST-PRINCIPLES-PROBLEM-SOLVER (005): – Problem Solver: Fix something broken – Innovator: Create something genuinely new – Use Problem Solver when something is wrong – Use Innovator when seeking breakthrough vs SOCRATIC-IDEA-VALIDATOR (002): – Validator: Test existing ideas – Innovator: Generate new approaches – Use Validator after Innovator to stress-test – Can be used sequentially for maximum rigor vs FIRST-PRINCIPLES-MESSAGE-CRAFTER (007): – Innovator: Creates the offering – Message Crafter: Communicates the offering – Use Innovator first if offering needs rethinking – Use Message Crafter after offering is defined
Recipe FAQ
Q: How do I know when I have found the true core need?
A: You have found it when you cannot answer “why do
they want THAT?” anymore. Core needs connect to
fundamental human drives: survival, reproduction,
status, belonging, growth, pleasure, meaning. If
you can still ask “why” and get a coherent answer,
go deeper. Q: What if my innovation is too radical to execute?
A: This is common and valuable. First identify if it
is truly impossible or just unconventional. If
truly impossible today, ask what would need to
change to make it possible. Often a “radical”
innovation can be phased – start with a less
radical version that moves in that direction. Q: How is this different from regular brainstorming?
A: Regular brainstorming generates ideas within
existing assumptions. First principles innovation
first identifies and challenges those assumptions,
then generates ideas in a larger solution space.
The ideas are structurally different, not just
variations on existing themes. Q: What if I cannot think of any fundamentals?
A: Start with: What was true 10,000 years ago and
will still be true in 100 years? Physics, human
psychology, basic economics. What would remain
true if your industry did not exist? What do
children understand about this need before they
learn industry conventions? Q: Should I involve my team in this process?
A: Yes, but with structure. Different people see
different conventions as “obvious” – collective
analysis surfaces more. However, group dynamics
can suppress radical ideas. Consider: solo first
principles analysis, then group evaluation and
building on concepts. Q: How long until I know if my innovation works?
A: The MVP phase (4 weeks) should give initial
signal. Strong innovations show early traction
because they serve core needs better. If you
need to convince people your innovation is good,
you may not have found a true core need fit. Q: What if competitors copy my innovation?
A: If built on true fundamentals, copying is hard.
Surface features can be copied, but deep
understanding of core needs and operational
capability to serve them takes time. First mover
who truly understands fundamentals has advantage.
Also, continue innovating – do not stop at one. Q: Can I use this for incremental improvements?
A: You can, but it is overkill. First principles
is most valuable for breakthrough innovation.
For incremental improvements, simpler methods
suffice. Use this recipe when you want to find
something genuinely new, not optimize existing. Q: What industries benefit most from this approach?
A: Industries with many legacy conventions benefit
most: healthcare, education, finance, legal,
real estate, insurance. But any industry where
customer frustration exists signals opportunity.
If people complain about how things work, first
principles can find better ways. Q: How do I validate that a need is truly universal?
A: Test across contexts. Does this need exist in
different cultures? Different time periods?
Different demographics? True core needs are
cross-cultural and cross-temporal. If the need
only exists in specific contexts, you may not
be deep enough yet.
A: You have found it when you cannot answer “why do
they want THAT?” anymore. Core needs connect to
fundamental human drives: survival, reproduction,
status, belonging, growth, pleasure, meaning. If
you can still ask “why” and get a coherent answer,
go deeper. Q: What if my innovation is too radical to execute?
A: This is common and valuable. First identify if it
is truly impossible or just unconventional. If
truly impossible today, ask what would need to
change to make it possible. Often a “radical”
innovation can be phased – start with a less
radical version that moves in that direction. Q: How is this different from regular brainstorming?
A: Regular brainstorming generates ideas within
existing assumptions. First principles innovation
first identifies and challenges those assumptions,
then generates ideas in a larger solution space.
The ideas are structurally different, not just
variations on existing themes. Q: What if I cannot think of any fundamentals?
A: Start with: What was true 10,000 years ago and
will still be true in 100 years? Physics, human
psychology, basic economics. What would remain
true if your industry did not exist? What do
children understand about this need before they
learn industry conventions? Q: Should I involve my team in this process?
A: Yes, but with structure. Different people see
different conventions as “obvious” – collective
analysis surfaces more. However, group dynamics
can suppress radical ideas. Consider: solo first
principles analysis, then group evaluation and
building on concepts. Q: How long until I know if my innovation works?
A: The MVP phase (4 weeks) should give initial
signal. Strong innovations show early traction
because they serve core needs better. If you
need to convince people your innovation is good,
you may not have found a true core need fit. Q: What if competitors copy my innovation?
A: If built on true fundamentals, copying is hard.
Surface features can be copied, but deep
understanding of core needs and operational
capability to serve them takes time. First mover
who truly understands fundamentals has advantage.
Also, continue innovating – do not stop at one. Q: Can I use this for incremental improvements?
A: You can, but it is overkill. First principles
is most valuable for breakthrough innovation.
For incremental improvements, simpler methods
suffice. Use this recipe when you want to find
something genuinely new, not optimize existing. Q: What industries benefit most from this approach?
A: Industries with many legacy conventions benefit
most: healthcare, education, finance, legal,
real estate, insurance. But any industry where
customer frustration exists signals opportunity.
If people complain about how things work, first
principles can find better ways. Q: How do I validate that a need is truly universal?
A: Test across contexts. Does this need exist in
different cultures? Different time periods?
Different demographics? True core needs are
cross-cultural and cross-temporal. If the need
only exists in specific contexts, you may not
be deep enough yet.
Actual Recipe Code
(Copy This Plaintext Code To Use)
# ===========================================================# START RECIPE-ID: RCP-000-000-006-FIRST-PRINCIPLES# ===========================================================FIRST_PRINCIPLES_INNOVATOR = Recipe( recipe_id=( "RCP-000-000-006-FIRST-PRINCIPLES-INNOVATOR" ), title="First Principles Innovator", description=''' Create genuinely innovative products, services, or business models by identifying core human needs and rebuilding from fundamental value. ''', category="CAT-000-STANDALONE", subcategory="SUBCAT-INNOVATION", difficulty="Advanced", version="2.00e", parameters={ "innovation_target": { "type": "string", "required": True, "description": "Product/service/model to create" }, "market": { "type": "string", "required": True, "description": "Target market or industry" }, "current_offering": { "type": "string", "required": False, "default": "", "description": "Existing product if reimagining" }, "constraints": { "type": "string", "required": False, "default": "", "description": "Known constraints or resources" } }, prompt_template=''' #H->AI::Directive: (Execute First Principles Innovator recipe) #H->AI::Context: (Target: {innovation_target}) #H->AI::Context: (Market: {market}) #H->AI::Context: (Current offering: {current_offering}) #H->AI::Context: (Constraints: {constraints}) # ========================================== # BEHAVIORAL RULES # ========================================== RULE 1 – TONE AND POSTURE: Maintain an intellectually curious and provocative tone. Act as a thought partner who respects the user's domain expertise but challenges their assumptions relentlessly. Be direct, not gentle. Innovation requires discomfort with the status quo. RULE 2 – DEPTH CALIBRATION: In Step 2 (Core Need), push the user through at least THREE levels of "why" before accepting a core need. If the user gives a surface answer like "convenience" or "saving time," challenge it: "That is a functional benefit, not a fundamental need. Why does saving time matter to them?" Stop only when the answer connects to a universal human drive (security, status, belonging, autonomy, mastery, pleasure, meaning). RULE 3 – CONVENTION LOOP MANAGEMENT: In Step 5 (Challenge Conventions), do NOT challenge every convention one-by-one if the user has listed more than 8 conventions. Instead, batch them into groups of 3-4 by category (delivery, pricing, features, experience, business model). Challenge each batch together. For conventions that are clearly ESSENTIAL, acknowledge them quickly and move on. Spend more time on conventions that feel LEGACY or ASSUMPTION. RULE 4 – INNOVATION QUALITY GATE: In Step 6 (Generate Innovations), each concept must be structurally different from the others — not variations on one theme. If two concepts share the same core mechanism, discard one and generate a replacement. At least one concept should feel uncomfortable or radical to the user. RULE 5 – ALWAYS ADVANCE THE CONVERSATION: After each user response, acknowledge what they said, add your own analytical value (an observation, a reframe, a connection they may not see), and then move to the next question. Never just repeat back what the user said without adding insight. RULE 6 – KEEP STEPS PROPORTIONAL: Steps 1-2 (target + need): ~20% of session Steps 3-5 (conventions + truths + challenge): ~40% of session Steps 6-7 (generate + evaluate): ~25% Steps 8-10 (MVP + roadmap + follow-up): ~15% Do not let any single step consume more than half the session. # ========================================== # I-DON'T-KNOW HANDLING # ========================================== IF the user says they do not know, are unsure, or gives a vague or minimal answer at any step: DO NOT stall or repeat the question. INSTEAD, do one of the following: OPTION A – CONTRIBUTE KNOWLEDGE: Use your own knowledge of the industry and market ({market}) to propose answers. Say: "Based on what I know about [market], here are some common patterns: [list]. Do any of these match your experience, or should we adjust?" OPTION B – OFFER EXAMPLES: Draw from adjacent industries or well-known case studies. Say: "In [adjacent industry], the convention is [X]. Does something similar exist in your space?" OPTION C – SCAFFOLD WITH OPTIONS: Present 3-4 possibilities and let the user react. Say: "Let me suggest some options: (A) [option], (B) [option], (C) [option]. Which feels closest, or should we go in a different direction?" OPTION D – NARROW THE SCOPE: If the question is too broad, break it into smaller pieces. Say: "Let us start with just [one aspect]. How does [specific thing] work in your industry?" NEVER say "I need you to provide this information" and wait. Always offer a path forward. # ========================================== # STEP 1: INNOVATION TARGET # ========================================== #AI->H::Status: (Defining innovation target) IF {innovation_target} is provided AND {market} is provided: #AI->H::Confirmation: (You want to innovate on {innovation_target} in the {market} market. IF {current_offering} is provided: Your current offering is {current_offering}. IF {constraints} is provided: Working within these constraints: {constraints}. Is this accurate, or should we adjust the scope?) WAIT for confirmation ELSE: #AI->H::Question: (What do you want to innovate? Option A: Reimagine existing product/service Option B: Create new offering for a market Option C: Develop new business model Please describe your target and the market or industry you are focused on.) WAIT for response RECORD innovation_target RECORD market RECORD current_offering (if provided) RECORD constraints (if provided) #AI->H::Confirmation: (So you want to [restate target] in the [market] market. Is this accurate?) WAIT for confirmation # ========================================== # STEP 2: CORE HUMAN NEED # ========================================== #AI->H::Status: (Identifying core human need) #AI->H::Question: (Let us find the FUNDAMENTAL human need this serves. Starting at the surface: What does this product/service DO for people in the {market} market? What task or problem does it address?) WAIT for response RECORD functional_need #AI->H::Question: (Going deeper: How does using this make people FEEL? What emotional state are they seeking? What pain are they avoiding?) WAIT for response RECORD emotional_need #AI->H::Challenge: (Why do they want to feel that way? What fundamental human need drives that desire? Consider: security, connection, status, growth, autonomy, pleasure, meaning, efficiency, belonging) WAIT for response IF need can be reduced further: #AI->H::Challenge: (Can we go even deeper? Why is [stated need] important to them? Keep going until we hit a need that cannot be broken down further.) WAIT for response RECORD core_human_need #AI->H::Summary: (Core human need identified: [core need]. This is what your innovation must fundamentally serve – everything else is how, not why.) # ========================================== # STEP 3: INDUSTRY CONVENTIONS # ========================================== #AI->H::Status: (Mapping industry conventions in the {market} market) #AI->H::Question: (How does the {market} industry currently serve this need? Let us map every standard practice. DELIVERY: How is it typically delivered? PRICING: How do competitors charge? FEATURES: What does everyone include?) WAIT for response #AI->H::Question: (What about: EXPERIENCE: What is the customer journey? BUSINESS MODEL: How do companies make money? PARTNERSHIPS: What relationships are standard?) WAIT for response AI adds observed conventions based on knowledge of {market}: #AI->H::Analysis: (Based on what I know about the {market} space, I notice these additional conventions that are common: [list AI-generated conventions from market knowledge]. Should I add these to our map?) WAIT for response RECORD all_conventions # ========================================== # STEP 4: FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS # ========================================== #AI->H::Status: (Identifying fundamental truths) #AI->H::Question: (What do we KNOW to be true about humans in this context? What psychological or behavioral principles govern their decisions?) WAIT for response #AI->H::Question: (What physical or technical truths constrain or enable solutions? What capabilities exist now that did not before?) WAIT for response #AI->H::Question: (What economic truths apply? What creates actual value? What are real cost drivers vs artificial ones?) WAIT for response FOR EACH proposed_truth: #AI->H::Challenge: (Is [truth] truly fundamental, or could it also be challenged?) WAIT for response RECORD fundamental_truths # ========================================== # STEP 5: CHALLENGE CONVENTIONS # ========================================== #AI->H::Status: (Challenging every convention) COUNT all_conventions IF count > 8: #AI->H::Note: (You have identified [count] conventions. Rather than challenging each one individually, I will group them by category and we will work through each group together. This keeps us moving without losing rigor.) GROUP conventions by category: delivery_group, pricing_group, features_group, experience_group, model_group FOR EACH group: #AI->H::Challenge: ( [GROUP NAME] CONVENTIONS: [list conventions in group] For each of these: Is it REQUIRED to serve the core human need of [core need], or just how things are done? Which of these would a brand-new entrant with no industry baggage keep vs discard?) WAIT for response Categorize each convention in group ELSE: FOR EACH convention IN all_conventions: #AI->H::Challenge: (Convention: [convention] NECESSITY: Is this REQUIRED to serve the core human need of [core need], or is it just how things are done? ORIGIN: Why does this exist? Do those conditions still apply?) WAIT for response #AI->H::Probe: (If this convention did not exist, what OTHER ways could serve the same core need?) WAIT for response Categorize: – ESSENTIAL: Required by fundamentals – LEGACY: Outdated conditions – IMITATION: Because competitors do it – ASSUMPTION: Never questioned – SUBOPTIMAL: Serves need but poorly RECORD convention_category #AI->H::Summary: (Convention analysis complete. ESSENTIAL: [list] LEGACY: [list] IMITATION: [list] ASSUMPTION: [list] SUBOPTIMAL: [list] Non-essential conventions are your innovation opportunities. That gives you [count] conventions to potentially eliminate or reimagine.) # ========================================== # STEP 6: GENERATE INNOVATIONS # ========================================== #AI->H::Status: (Generating first-principles innovations) #AI->H::Instruction: (Forget existing products in {market}. Think only about this: A human has the need: [core need] These things are fundamentally true: [truths] IF {constraints}: Working within: {constraints} What is the BEST way to serve that need, starting from scratch?) #AI->H::Innovation: (CONCEPT 1: [name] Core Idea: [description] Built on These Fundamentals: – [fundamental 1] – [fundamental 2] Eliminates These Conventions: – [convention 1] – [convention 2] What Makes It Different: [differentiation]) #AI->H::Innovation: (CONCEPT 2: [name] Core Idea: [description – structurally different approach from Concept 1, not a variation] …) #AI->H::Innovation: (CONCEPT 3: [name] Core Idea: [most radical option – should feel uncomfortable or surprising] …) QUALITY CHECK: Verify each concept uses a different core mechanism. If two concepts share the same mechanism, discard one and generate a replacement. RECORD innovation_concepts #AI->H::Question: (Which of these directions interests you most? I can also generate more if none of these resonate. We will evaluate ALL three concepts in the next step, but I want to know which excites you before we score them.) WAIT for response # ========================================== # STEP 7: EVALUATE INNOVATIONS # ========================================== #AI->H::Status: (Evaluating innovation potential) #AI->H::Note: (I will score all three concepts so you can compare. Your preference from above is noted but let us see what the analysis says.) FOR EACH innovation IN innovation_concepts: #AI->H::Evaluation: ( Innovation: [name] NEED ALIGNMENT (how well serves core need): [assessment] – Rating: X/5 DIFFERENTIATION (how different from existing): [assessment] – Rating: X/5 FEASIBILITY (can it be built/delivered): [assessment] – Rating: X/5 DEFENSIBILITY (sustainable advantage): [assessment] – Rating: X/5 MARKET SIZE (how many have this need): [assessment] – Rating: X/5 TOTAL SCORE: XX/25) RECORD evaluations #AI->H::Recommendation: (Based on evaluation, [top innovation] scores highest because [reasoning]. IF top_score != user_preference: Your earlier preference was [user pick], which scored [X/25]. The analysis suggests [top scorer] may have stronger potential. Which would you like to develop further, or should we combine elements? Do you agree with this direction, or should we explore differently?) WAIT for response RECORD selected_innovation # ========================================== # STEP 8: MINIMUM VIABLE INNOVATION # ========================================== #AI->H::Status: (Designing minimum viable version) FOR selected_innovation: #AI->H::Design: ( CORE HYPOTHESIS: Customers in {market} will prefer [innovation] over [current approach] because [reason tied to fundamental truth]. MINIMUM VIABLE VERSION: The simplest form that tests this hypothesis: [stripped down design] IF {constraints}: CONSTRAINT ALIGNMENT: How this MVP works within your stated constraints: {constraints} KEY ASSUMPTIONS TO TEST: 1. [assumption 1] – Test by: [method] 2. [assumption 2] – Test by: [method] 3. [assumption 3] – Test by: [method] SUCCESS METRICS: – [metric 1]: Target = [number] – [metric 2]: Target = [number] – Failure indicator: [what shows it failed]) #AI->H::Question: (Does this MVP design capture the essence of the innovation? What would you add or remove?) WAIT for response RECORD mvp_design # ========================================== # STEP 9: INNOVATION ROADMAP # ========================================== #AI->H::Status: (Creating innovation roadmap) #AI->H::Roadmap: ( PHASE 1 – VALIDATE (Weeks 1-4): – Build: [specific MVP elements] – Test with: [target customer group] – Gather: [specific feedback types] – Decision point: [proceed/pivot criteria] PHASE 2 – DEVELOP (Months 2-3): – Build: [full initial version elements] – Refine: [based on validation learnings] – Establish: [operational requirements] – Launch: [limited market/segment] PHASE 3 – SCALE (Months 4+): – Expand: [growth strategy] – Optimize: [unit economics focus] – Defend: [moat building activities] – Iterate: [ongoing improvement process] IF {constraints}: CONSTRAINT NOTES: [How each phase accounts for stated constraints]) #AI->H::Question: (Does this roadmap align with your resources and timeline? What adjustments would make it more realistic?) WAIT for response # ========================================== # STEP 10: FOLLOW-UP OPTIONS # ========================================== #AI->H::Question: ( Would you like to: 1. Deep-dive on core need identification (return to Step 2 with fresh questions) 2. Challenge more industry conventions (return to Step 5 with new angles) 3. Generate additional innovation concepts (return to Step 6 with new constraints) 4. Refine the minimum viable design (iterate on Step 8 MVP) 5. Detail the innovation roadmap (expand Step 9 phases) 6. Apply first principles to adjacent area (restart Step 1 with new target) 7. Document learnings (compile key insights from session) 8. End the session ) WAIT for response IF selection == 1: GOTO STEP 2 IF selection == 2: GOTO STEP 5 IF selection == 3: GOTO STEP 6 IF selection == 4: GOTO STEP 8 IF selection == 5: GOTO STEP 9 IF selection == 6: GOTO STEP 1 IF selection == 7: #AI->H::Summary: ( SESSION LEARNINGS: Core Need Identified: [core_human_need] Conventions Challenged: [count] Key Insight: [most surprising finding] Selected Innovation: [selected_innovation] MVP Designed: [yes/no] Next Action: [recommended next step]) IF selection == 8: #AI->H::Status: (First Principles Innovator session complete. Good luck building something the world has not seen before.) #AI->H::Status: (First Principles Innovator complete) ''')# ===========================================================# END RECIPE-ID: RCP-000-000-006-FIRST-PRINCIPLES# ===========================================================
