File 02

Investigation Grammar

Missing target fields are not permission to guess. Produce an intake checklist and reusable research plan.

1. Root instruction

INVESTIGATE(
  target,
  executive?,
  industry,
  geography,
  time_window,
  offered_services,
  mode,
  authorization
)
→ resolve
→ plan sources
→ collect passively
→ normalize
→ corroborate
→ analyze with LAKA
→ generate alternatives
→ model ranges
→ rank
→ report
→ prepare outreach and CRM record
→ review

2. Entity resolution

Organization = LegalName, TradingNames, CanonicalDomain,
               [ RegistryID ], [ Ticker ], [ Parent ], [ Subsidiaries ],
               Headquarters, OperatingRegions ;

Executive    = PublicName, PublicRole, OrganizationLink,
               EffectiveDates, PublicBusinessSources ;

Competitor   = Organization, ComparisonReason, SimilarityDimensions,
               InclusionEvidence ;

Resolve the company before collecting. Match at least two of domain, legal name, registry identifier, headquarters, ticker, or official profile. For a named person, match the role and company using official or reputable public business sources. Do not merge people on name alone.

Competitor selection grammar

Candidate pool = direct substitutes
               | same customer/job-to-be-done
               | same geography/price band
               | adjacent entrants with plausible substitution

Up to three primary comparators = maximize comparability across:
  customer + offer + geography + scale + channel + business model

If three firms are not truly comparable, disclose the mismatch and use fewer. Archetypes are optional labels/diversity aids, not a quota; three genuine direct rivals may all be selected.

3. Question grammar

Every research question contains:

question_id: Q-0001
decision_supported: ""
subject: ""
property_or_relationship: ""
time_window: ""
geography: ""
comparison: "baseline|competitor|prior period|benchmark|none"
claim_threshold: ""
disconfirming_evidence: ""
allowed_sources: []
excluded_methods: []
stop_condition: ""

Good questions can be falsified. Replace “Does the company have bad PR?” with “Within the declared 12-month window, what complaint themes recur across at least two independent source types, and how did company responses differ?”

4. Source-plan grammar

Question
→ preferred primary sources
→ independent corroboration
→ historical comparison
→ competitor equivalent
→ missing-evidence route
→ stop rule

Source order:

government, regulator, court, standards body, official registry;
company-controlled source, filing, status page, repository, published policy;
platform-provided transparency source or first-party review record;
reputable reporting, trade publication, or research organization;
public community discussion or user-generated review;
aggregator/snippet used only as a lead to the original.

Company-controlled sources are authoritative about what the company publicly claims, not proof that the claim is true.

5. Nine domain modules

02.5-nine-domain-modules.t1
Code	Module	Unit of analysis
P1	Technical and passive OSINT	public asset, configuration signal, dependency, document, change
P2	PR, reputation, narrative	mention, story, review, theme, response, outlet
P3	Marketing and demand	creative, keyword/topic, content item, journey step, conversion signal
P4	Blind spots and assets	unused channel, audience, content, data, partnership, region, offer
P5	Microeconomics	unit, price, volume, variable cost, acquisition, retention, capacity
P6	Competitors	like-for-like feature, offer, narrative, channel, performance proxy
P7	Macroeconomics	external driver, exposure path, lag, leading indicator, scenario
P8	Financial impact	gap, mechanism, inputs, range, attribution, timing, confidence
P9	Authority and CRM	relevant finding, offer match, decision-maker, compliant contact route

Each module uses the same evidence and LAKA grammar. This makes cross-domain findings comparable.

6. Volumetric decomposition

For each material signal, expand across these dimensions:

Entity × Asset × Stakeholder × Journey Stage × Channel × Geography
× Time × Event × Narrative × Metric × Source Type × Evidence State

Then apply the ten internal variables and five change states. Use all fourteen change variables on signals that could affect the recommendation or dollar model.

Entity alternatives

Asset alternatives

Stakeholder alternatives

Journey alternatives

Time alternatives

7. Symptom-to-hypothesis branching

Never jump from signal to diagnosis. Generate at least these hypothesis families:

02.7-symptom-to-hypothesis-branching.t1
Family	Example explanation
Measurement artifact	collection bias, missing pages, source outage, changed taxonomy
Demand	intent shifted, segment changed, seasonality, category decline/growth
Offer	value proposition, packaging, pricing, proof, differentiation
Acquisition	targeting, creative fatigue, channel mix, discoverability
Conversion	message match, trust, usability, accessibility, latency, form friction
Retention	activation, value realization, support, product reliability
Operations	manual work, queue, ownership, capacity, vendor dependency
Technology	architecture, performance, observability, integration, technical debt
Reputation	service failure, expectation gap, narrative vacuum, slow response
Competitive	entrant, imitation, bundling, distribution advantage, switching
Macro	rates, inflation, labor, regulation, currency, supply chain
Intentional strategy	premium positioning, controlled demand, channel exit, focus

Actively seek evidence that the apparent “gap” is intentional or immaterial.

8. Intervention branching

For each preferred hypothesis, generate state-distinct alternatives:

02.8-intervention-branching.t1
Change state	Intervention pattern
C0	observe, preserve, benchmark, instrument
C1	clarify, tune, repair, add one missing control, run one test
C2	coordinate campaign/process redesign, integrate tools, repackage offer
C3	change architecture, operating model, governance, incentives, data loop
C4	redefine category, beneficiary, unit of value, delivery model, or demand curve

Also generate do nothing, defer until trigger, buy, build, partner, and stop/retire where relevant.

9. Elimination record

option_id: OPT-0001
mechanism: ""
change_state: C0|C1|C2|C3|C4
evidence_fit: 0-5
strategic_fit: 0-5
urgency: 0-5
reversibility: 0-5
capacity_fit: 0-5
time_to_useful_evidence: ""
estimated_cost_range: [low, base, high]
estimated_value_range: [low, base, high]
risk: 0-5
dependencies: []
decision: keep|defer|discard|needs-data
reason: ""

Do not discard a high-value structural option merely because it is slow; route it to a portfolio horizon while selecting a smaller near-term test.

10. Immediate-authority compression

The full research volume is compressed into:

One decision-maker
+ One public business priority
+ One non-obvious evidence chain
+ One bounded economic mechanism
+ One reversible diagnostic or intervention
+ One permission-based CTA

The outreach message must not expose the full surveillance trail. Use the minimum relevant evidence and link to public sources when helpful.

11. Unknown-handling grammar

Unknown(input)
→ state why it matters
→ identify lawful source or question that could resolve it
→ show which conclusions depend on it
→ keep model as range or not estimable
→ never fill with an uncited benchmark silently

12. Audit run state machine

DRAFT_SCOPE
→ RESOLVED_TARGET
→ APPROVED_SOURCE_PLAN
→ COLLECTING
→ NORMALIZING
→ ANALYZING
→ HUMAN_REVIEW
→ REPORT_READY
→ OUTREACH_READY
→ ARCHIVED_OR_MONITORED

Any policy, privacy, identity, or evidence failure moves the run to BLOCKED_REVIEW.

02-investigation-grammar.md · 252 lines · 8956 bytes · SHA-256 09c2897a7978c1d4

Raw Markdown Parsed blocks (JSON) All documents