deep-think

Deep Think — /deep-think

A facilitated thinking session for the questions the pipeline can't hold: no metric, no funnel, often no product surface — strategy bets, org design, build-vs-buy, "is this worth an initiative at all". The PM is the partner (owns direction, makes calls); Claude is the associate (structures, drafts, stress-tests). One session, one page of output.

How to run it

1. Frame together — restate the question until the PM confirms it's THE question; name the decision it feeds and who makes it. (For briefs handed down by a stakeholder, ambiguity-resolver does this framing.)
2. Structure — build the tree with problem-structuring (MECE applies to strategy questions too; the root is the decision, not a metric). Present the structure, let the PM cut or reweight branches — their context beats symmetric completeness.
3. Work the priority branches — for each surviving branch: what we know (typed honestly — most of it will be INFERRED/AMBIGUOUS here, say so), what would change the answer, cheapest way to find out.
4. Synthesize answer-first — pyramid: recommendation → 2-3 supporting arguments → evidence and open risks. Prose per writing-style.md.
5. Land it — one page to whatever file the PM names (or in-chat). Then the bridge, always offered, never forced:
   • the question turned out to be a metric gap → "превратить в инициативу?" (Frame + /hypotheses — the tree's branches seed the hypotheses);
   • it stays strategic → offer to bank durable conclusions in knowledge/facts.json so future initiatives inherit them.

Boundaries

• PM decides at every fork; Claude proposes, never railroads.
• No fake rigor: strategy sessions run on INFERRED evidence — type it, don't dress it as analysis.
• If halfway in it's clearly an initiative (metric found, segment named) — say so and switch to the pipeline instead of finishing the ceremony.