RCP-000-000-083-DISCUSSION-SYNTHESIS-STRATEGIC-ALIGNMENT

{
“recipe_id”: “RCP-000-000-083”,
“recipe_name”: “Discussion Synthesis & Strategic Alignment”,
“version”: “v3.00a-R”,
“schema_version”: “1.1”,
“schema_profile”: “Option-B typed-envelope (H041 LOCKED canonical)”,
“authored_by”: “Cat (P067) on H094 CRPW pipeline run 53”,
“source_of_truth”: “phase3/recipe-83/RCP-083-EXTENDED-AI-GUIDANCE.txt”,
“audience_scope”: “AI EXECUTION GUIDANCE (NOT FOR HUMAN USERS)”,
“ai_to_ai_communication”: {
“core_philosophy”: {
“type”: “prose”,
“body”: “RCP-083 is the BRIDGE between simulation and reality. It converts structured thought experiments into actionable engagement plans. Every recommendation is a hypothesis — the user walks out with testable assumptions, not false certainty. Think of the AI as a post-game analyst who reviews the footage and prepares the next game plan, knowing the actual game will be different.”
},
“synthesis_methodology”: {
“type”: “keyed_list”,
“preamble”: “SYNTHESIS METHODOLOGY — evidence handling, blocking issue identification, and engagement sequence logic.”,
“items”: [
{
“key”: “EVIDENCE HIERARCHY”,
“body”: “Prioritize evidence by strength: (1) Positions stated multiple times across rounds — consistent, likely durable in reality. (2) Positions stated once with supporting reasoning — credible but less tested. (3) Positions inferred from reactions or silence — weakest, flag as inference. When a persona shifted position during the discussion, note BOTH the original and final positions. The shift itself is data.”
},
{
“key”: “BLOCKING ISSUE IDENTIFICATION”,
“body”: “A true blocking issue requires three elements: (1) A stakeholder with sufficient influence to halt progress, (2) An unresolved objection to a core element of the proposal, (3) No resolution path demonstrated in the simulation. If ANY of these is missing, it’s a concern, not a block. Overstating concerns as blocking issues creates false urgency. Understating true blocks creates blind spots.”
},
{
“key”: “ENGAGEMENT SEQUENCE LOGIC”,
“body”: “The sequence is the report’s highest-value output. Common strategies: Convert-blockers-first (engage potential blockers early, convert them to supporters or co-designers before they can organize opposition). Build-coalition-first (engage natural supporters to build momentum, then approach skeptics from a position of strength). Address-dependencies (some stakeholders need information from others; engage information providers first). State which strategy you’re using and why.”
}
]
},
“report_section_guidance”: {
“type”: “keyed_list”,
“preamble”: “REPORT SECTION GUIDANCE — quality standards for key sections of the Strategic Alignment Report.”,
“items”: [
{
“key”: “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY”,
“body”: “2-3 sentences maximum. ‘We simulated [topic] with [N] stakeholders over [N] rounds. Key finding: [one-sentence takeaway]. Primary path forward: [one-sentence recommendation].'”
},
{
“key”: “STAKEHOLDER LANDSCAPE”,
“body”: “For each stakeholder: where they ended (not just where they started), what moved them (or didn’t), and what remains unresolved. This section answers ‘where do we stand with each person?'”
},
{
“key”: “ALIGNMENT MAP”,
“body”: “Visual-friendly format. Group stakeholders by position: supportive / conditional / opposed / undetermined. Note cross-group connections. This should be scannable.”
},
{
“key”: “BLOCKING ISSUES”,
“body”: “Prioritize ruthlessly. Most simulations reveal 1-3 true blocking issues. If you have more than 5, you’re either overstating concerns or the proposal needs fundamental rethinking (which is also a valid finding).”
},
{
“key”: “COMMUNICATION STRATEGY”,
“body”: “Be specific. ‘Lead with data’ is too vague. ‘Open with the SHRM retention study (cited in simulation Round 2), frame as investment with defined payback period, avoid everyone-is-doing-it framing (triggered skepticism in Round 3)’ is actionable.”
},
{
“key”: “REAL-WORLD ACTION STEPS”,
“body”: “This is the most important section. Each action should be a specific, testable hypothesis. Good: ‘Ask CFO: If we co-designed the evaluation metrics, would you support a 6-month pilot? Listen for whether they engage with the specifics or deflect to broader concerns.’ Bad: ‘Discuss pilot metrics with finance leadership.’ The distinction is specificity.”
}
]
},
“simulation_to_reality_transition”: {
“type”: “keyed_list”,
“preamble”: “SIMULATION-TO-REALITY TRANSITION — calibrating user confidence in simulation outcomes.”,
“items”: [
{
“key”: “WHAT SIMULATION CAPTURES WELL”,
“body”: “Logical structure of stakeholder arguments. Which concerns are predictable given role and evidence. Where flexibility zones MIGHT exist. Which proposals address multiple concerns simultaneously.”
},
{
“key”: “WHAT SIMULATION MISSES”,
“body”: “Personal relationships and trust levels. Informal influence networks. Recent events that changed dynamics. Emotional responses to specific framings. Political calculations beyond the immediate decision. Information stakeholders have that wasn’t in the deep research.”
},
{
“key”: “CLOSING CALIBRATION”,
“body”: “The closing section should be clear: ‘Your first real conversation will teach you more than the entire simulation. Be prepared to update your strategy after every interaction.'”
}
]
},
“strategic_synthesis_engine”: {
“type”: “keyed_list”,
“preamble”: “STRATEGIC SYNTHESIS ENGINE — the design pattern driving this recipe’s analytical approach.”,
“items”: [
{
“key”: “PATTERN DESCRIPTION”,
“body”: “Takes simulation transcript from RCP-082, systematically analyzes alignment, opposition, alliances, and negotiation space, then generates a 13-section Strategic Alignment Report with testable engagement sequence and action steps. Every recommendation grounded in simulation evidence (RULE 1), framed as hypothesis (RULE 2).”
},
{
“key”: “ANTI-PATTERNS”,
“body”: “Do NOT introduce new stakeholder intelligence beyond simulation data. Do NOT assign probability scores or percentages to outcomes (RULE 11). Do NOT claim strategic certainty — all recommendations are hypotheses. Do NOT overstate concerns as blocking issues. Do NOT provide generic recommendations (‘build coalition support’) without specifics.”
},
{
“key”: “WORKFLOW CONTEXT”,
“body”: “RCP-083 is the 4th and final recipe in the Stakeholder Analysis Workflow (080→081→082→083). Input is the Discussion Transcript from RCP-082. Output is the Strategic Alignment Report — the workflow’s culminating deliverable that converts the entire simulation investment into actionable engagement strategy.”
}
]
},
“edge_cases”: {
“type”: “keyed_list”,
“preamble”: “EDGE CASES — handling unusual simulation outcomes.”,
“items”: [
{
“key”: “SIMULATION ENDED WITHOUT RESOLUTION”,
“body”: “This is a VALID finding. Report should say: ‘The simulation did not produce consensus, which suggests this decision may require phased or conditional approaches rather than full-group agreement.'”
},
{
“key”: “ALL STAKEHOLDERS AGREED”,
“body”: “Be suspicious. Check whether artificial consensus crept in. If genuine, note: ‘Broad alignment suggests the proposal may succeed, but TEST this assumption — simulation tends to underrepresent hidden objections.'”
},
{
“key”: “TRANSCRIPT IS THIN”,
“body”: “Work with what you have. Note in limitations that the simulation was brief and deeper exploration might reveal additional dynamics. Recommend specific areas where additional simulation rounds would help.”
},
{
“key”: “EXTENSIVE REAL-WORLD CONSTRAINTS”,
“body”: “Incorporate into engagement sequence and communication strategy. Real-world constraints often change the optimal engagement order.”
}
]
},
“quality_standards”: {
“type”: “keyed_list”,
“preamble”: “QUALITY STANDARDS — report quality checklist for self-verification.”,
“items”: [
{
“key”: “EVIDENCE GROUNDING”,
“body”: “Every recommendation cites simulation evidence. No fabricated precision (percentages, probabilities). Hypothesis framing throughout.”
},
{
“key”: “BLOCKING ISSUE DISCIPLINE”,
“body”: “Blocking issues limited to genuine blocks (3-element test). Concerns and preferences clearly distinguished from blocks.”
},
{
“key”: “ACTIONABILITY”,
“body”: “Engagement sequence has rationale for each position. Communication strategies are specific and actionable. Action steps include what to say, ask, and listen for.”
},
{
“key”: “INTELLECTUAL HONESTY”,
“body”: “Simulation limitations explicitly acknowledged. Surprise findings highlighted. No new stakeholder intelligence introduced. Report is self-contained and readable independently. Closing transitions from simulation to real world.”
}
]
}
}
}

Show/Hide accordion — “Extended Information for the AI” section (AI-to-AI execution guidance, failure modes, tone calibration, common mistakes)