C31-storm

C31 STORM

Multi-perspective analysis and synthesis skill. Based on Stanford STORM's core philosophy: discover perspectives → simulate dialogue → map conflicts → synthesize judgment.

Not a fixed "5 perspectives" template. Perspectives are dynamically discovered from the input context, not preset.

When to Use

• User says "你怎么看" / "评估一下" / "值得吗" / "该不该"
• C31-research detects multi-source conflicts (conflict_detected: true)
• Need to evaluate a decision, a person, a technology, or a strategy from multiple angles
• Single-perspective analysis feels insufficient or biased

When NOT to Use

• Factual lookup only (use C31-research)
• Simple yes/no questions with no nuance
• User explicitly asks for a single perspective
• No prior research context exists (run C31-research first)

Core Principles

1. Perspectives are discovered, not preset — extract from input, not "always 5 fixed angles"
2. Dialogue is simulated, not monologue — each perspective can ask follow-up questions
3. Conflicts are mapped, not resolved — identify where perspectives disagree and why
4. Synthesis is provisional, not absolute — confidence levels on all judgments
5. Sources are mandatory, not optional — every claim must be traceable

Pipeline

Input: C31-research output (structured findings + sources)
  ↓
Phase 1: Perspective Discovery → extract 3-5 dynamic perspectives
  ↓
Phase 2: Simulated Dialogue → each perspective interrogates the topic
  ↓
Phase 3: Conflict Map → organize agreements, conflicts, blind spots
  ↓
Phase 4: Synthesis → judgment + recommendations with confidence
  ↓
Phase 5: Source Audit → verify all claims have traceable sources
  ↓
Output: Structured analysis with conflict map + synthesis + gaps

Phase 1: Perspective Discovery

Goal: Extract 3-5 distinct perspectives from the input context.

Input: C31-research output (or user-provided context).

Process:

1. Scan the input for implicit立场分化:
   • Source A says X, Source B says not-X → 2 perspectives
   • Different disciplines approach same topic differently → disciplinary perspectives
   • Different stakeholders have different incentives → stakeholder perspectives
   • Historical vs current view → temporal perspectives
2. Name each perspective with a one-line identity (e.g., "Effectuation理论研究者", "批判管理学者", "实践派创业者")
3. For each perspective, note its core concern and potential bias