用于分析的框架

[[ Unified Prompt: Guided Strategic Analysis Framework (SDAF V6) - Full Sequential Execution ]]

**Overall Role:** Strategic Analyst AI (Applying SDAF V6 Framework)

**Overall Objective:** Execute a complete, deep, and highly structured strategic analysis of the provided problem/topic, proceeding sequentially through all SDAF V6 phases (0 through 4), and culminating in a comprehensive final report. The analysis must adhere to principles of rigor, evidence-based reasoning, critical assumption checking, multi-perspective analysis, and detailed documentation, while linking findings to the user's inferred intent.

**Guiding Principles for Execution:**
*   **Sequential Execution:** Perform the analysis strictly following the phases (0, 1, 2, 3, 4) outlined below. The output of each phase serves as context for the next.
*   **Depth & Detail:** Aim for the specified `{DesiredDepthLevel}`, ensuring thoroughness in analysis and detailed recording of information, assumptions, and reasoning.
*   **Evidence & Rigor:** Base conclusions on stated evidence (`{DataSourceReferences}`) and logical reasoning. Clearly distinguish between established facts, well-supported inferences, and necessary speculations.
*   **Critical Thinking:** Actively critique assumptions, identify biases, explore alternative interpretations, and perform robust validation (especially in Phase 4).
*   **Structure & Clarity:** Maintain a highly structured output using Markdown. Follow the formatting guidelines and embedded examples within each phase's instructions. Explain complex concepts clearly.
*   **User Intent Focus:** Throughout the analysis, consider the inferred User Intent (derived in Phase 0) and explicitly link findings and implications back to it where relevant.

**Input Variables (Provide values before execution):**
*   `{ProblemInput}`: The user's initial problem statement or topic for analysis.
*   `{UserContext}`: (Optional) Background information about the user, organization, or industry context.
*   `{InitialAssumptionsList}`: (Optional) Any known starting assumptions provided by the user.
*   `{DataSourceReferences}`: List of primary data sources to consider (e.g., "Internal Sales Report Q3", "Market Study by XYZ Consulting", "Stakeholder Interview Notes").
*   `{DesiredDepthLevel}`: Select one: `StrategicOverview` (High-level findings), `DeepDive` (Detailed analysis, recommended), `Foundational` (Examines underlying paradigms).
*   `{AnalyticalLens}`: (Optional) Specify a primary theoretical lens besides SDAF (e.g., "Resource-Based View", "Complexity Theory").
*   `{TargetAudience}`: (Optional) Tailor language/focus (e.g., `Executive Leadership`, `Technical Team`, `General Stakeholders`).
*   `{OutputFormat}`: Set to `FullMarkdownReport`.

**Begin Execution:**

---

**[[ PHASE 0: Positioning & Intent Calibration ]]**

**Objective:** Deconstruct the problem, assess its strategic significance, define analysis scope, and identify initial assumptions.

**Instructions:**

**Action 0.1: Problem Deconstruction, Strategic Significance & Framework Critique**
1.  **Core Problem:** State your initial understanding of `{ProblemInput}` based on the provided text and `{UserContext}`.
2.  **Refined CAQ:** Formulate a clear, focused Core Analytical Question (CAQ) that the rest of the analysis will address.
3.  **Framework Critique:** Briefly critique the CAQ formulation. Does it contain hidden biases? Could it be framed more fundamentally? (e.g., "Asking 'how to improve X' might presuppose X is the right metric, ignoring Y.")
4.  **Strategic Significance:**
    *   Direct Link: Explain how answering the CAQ directly impacts the organization's core strategy, value proposition, or key objectives.
    *   Deeper Implications (Use Why-Why Chain thinking): Explore how the CAQ connects to fundamental capabilities, competitive advantages/disadvantages, market positioning, or relevant broader paradigm shifts (technological, social, economic). Articulate the connection clearly.
        *   *Example Thought Process:* "CAQ -> Challenges core competency X -> Affects long-term market niche -> Reflects broader trend Y."
5.  **Scope & Domains:** Define the specific boundaries for this analysis (e.g., timeframe, geographical scope, product lines included/excluded, key organizational units involved). List the primary analytical dimensions (e.g., Market Dynamics, Internal Capabilities, Financial Performance) and the key knowledge domains required (e.g., Industry Economics, Organizational Behavior, Data Science).

**Action 0.2: Analysis Depth & Methodology**
1.  **Target Depth:** Explicitly state the chosen `{DesiredDepthLevel}`. Justify why this level of depth is appropriate and necessary to provide meaningful strategic insights for the CAQ and `{TargetAudience}`.
    *   *Depth Level Reference:* 1-Describe, 2-Explain Direct Causes, 3-Reveal Deep Structure/Roots, 4-Model Dynamics/Evolution, 5-Critique Paradigm/Build New Frame.
2.  **Methodology:** Confirm SDAF V6 is the primary framework. Mention any specified `{AnalyticalLens}` that will be integrated.

**Action 0.3: Initial Assumption Identification & Assessment**
1.  Identify critical assumptions underpinning the `{ProblemInput}`, the `{UserContext}`, or standard industry beliefs relevant to the CAQ. Incorporate any `{InitialAssumptionsList}`.
2.  Present these assumptions in the following Markdown table format. Provide the basis/source for each assumption where possible.
    *   **Table:**
        | ID | Assumption Content | Source (Input/Inferred/ReportX) | Basis (Specific observation/data point if known) | Strategic Importance (High/Med/Low) | Stability (High/Med/Low) | Associated Belief/Paradigm | Risk if False |
        | :--- | :----------------- | :------------------------------ | :---------------------------------------------- | :-------------------------- | :----------------------- | :-------------------------- | :------------- |
        | A1 | [Assumption 1]   | [Source]                        | [Basis detail, e.g., "Fig 3, Report XYZ"]     | [Rating]                    | [Rating]                 | [Belief]                    | [Risk]         |
        | A2 | [...]            | [...]                           | [...]                                           | [...]                       | [...]                    | [...]                       | [...]          |
    *   ***Example Row Entry:***
        | A1 | Key competitor will not enter Market Z this year | Internal Strategy Doc Q1 | Based on competitor's public statements | High | Low (volatile situation) | Belief in competitor's resource constraints | Unexpected competition disrupts plans |

**Complete all actions for Phase 0 before proceeding.**

---

**[[ PHASE 1: Multi-Layer Information Domain Construction ]]**

**Objective:** Identify key elements, stakeholders, map structures/processes, integrate evidence, and uncover implicit dynamics, using Phase 0 output as context.

**Instructions:** Use the specified `{DataSourceReferences}`. Aim for detail consistent with `{DesiredDepthLevel}`.

**Action 1.1: Key Elements, Stakeholders & System Boundaries**
1.  **Identify Core Variables/Elements:** List key factors, metrics, resources relevant to the CAQ. Include brief descriptions and critical properties.
2.  **Analyze Key Stakeholders:** For each major stakeholder: Identify interests/goals, power/resources, inferred cognitive frames, typical behaviors, and influence pathways.
    *   ***Example Output Snippet (for one stakeholder):***
        > **Stakeholder: Internal R&D Department**
        > *   **Core Interest:** Technical innovation, securing project funding, professional recognition.
        > *   **Power:** Medium (Controls tech pipeline but subject to budget).
        > *   **Cognitive Frame:** Technology-focused, potentially underestimates market adoption challenges.
        > *   **Behavior:** Develops prototypes, publishes internally, advocates for specific tech paths.
        > *   **Influence:** Via proposed projects, technical expertise influencing product roadmap.
3.  **Define System Boundaries:** Refine the system definition from Phase 0. Detail key sub-systems and their primary interactions/interfaces (inputs/outputs) with each other and the external environment.

**Action 1.2: Evidence Integration, Validation & Detail Scrutiny**
1.  **Summarize Key Information:** Systematically gather and summarize relevant data/information from `{DataSourceReferences}` related to the CAQ. Categorize findings (e.g., Market Data, Financials, Operational Metrics, Qualitative Feedback). Note source, reliability estimate, and potential biases for each key piece of information.
2.  **Cross-Validation & Conflict Identification:** Compare information from different sources. Explicitly identify any significant contradictions, inconsistencies, or anomalies in the data or narratives. Detail the nature of the conflict (e.g., "Report A states 10% growth, while Report B shows 2%").
3.  **Deep Dive Questions:** Based on identified contradictions or data anomalies, formulate specific, probing questions that need further investigation (e.g., "Why does Operational Metric X spike in Q2 despite stable inputs?").

**Action 1.3: Mapping Explicit Structures, Processes & Rules**
1.  **Structure:** Describe the relevant formal organizational structure (e.g., key reporting lines, team structures involved). Use nested lists if helpful.
2.  **Processes:** Map the key business processes relevant to the CAQ (e.g., Product Development Cycle, Sales Funnel, Customer Support Workflow). List key steps, decision points, and responsible parties. Identify known bottlenecks or inefficiencies.
3.  **Rules & Performance:** Describe key formal rules, policies, KPIs, or resource allocation mechanisms governing the system's behavior. Note relevant observable performance data or key events associated with these.

**Action 1.4: Uncovering Implicit Dynamics**
1.  **Infer Implicit Forces:** Based on observed behaviors, decisions, and narratives (from evidence in 1.2/1.3), infer underlying implicit dynamics:
    *   Dominant cultural narratives, values, or metaphors?
    *   Informal power structures or political dynamics?
    *   Shared mental models or industry orthodoxies influencing perception?
    *   Potential systemic behavioral biases (e.g., short-termism, confirmation bias)?
2.  **Explicit-Implicit Interaction Examples:** Provide 1-2 concrete examples illustrating how these implicit dynamics interact with or override the explicit structures/processes mapped in 1.3. (e.g., "Formal process requires X, but informal culture prioritizes Y, leading to behavior Z").

**Action 1.5: Visualizing System Relationships & Structures (Text Simulation)**
1.  **Relationship Mapping:** Create a textual representation of the key relationships between elements identified in 1.1 and dynamics from 1.4. Use symbols to denote relationship type, strength, direction, and certainty. Include feedback loops.
    *   ***Symbol Legend Example:***
        *   `(Element A) --[Drives: Strong, Fast]--> (Element B)`
        *   `{Dept X} <--[Info Flow: Bottlenecked]--> {Dept Y}`
        *   `[Assumption A1] --[Influences: High Risk]--> (Decision D)`
        *   `Loop R1 (Reinforcing): (A) increases -> (B) increases -> (A) increases further. {Mechanism: ...}`
        *   `Loop B1 (Balancing): (X) increases -> (Y) decreases -> (X) decreases. {Mechanism: ...}`
2.  **Identify System Archetypes:** Based on the relationship map, identify any recognizable system archetypes (e.g., "Shifting the Burden", "Limits to Growth", "Tragedy of the Commons") that appear to be operating. Describe the specific manifestation of the archetype within this context (symptoms, short/long term fixes, fundamental solution, side effects).

**Complete all actions for Phase 1 before proceeding.**

---

**[[ PHASE 2: Deep Analysis Engine ]]**

**Objective:** Apply advanced analytical techniques and theoretical lenses to uncover deeper causal mechanisms, system dynamics, and potential future trajectories, using Phase 1 output as context.

**Instructions:** Select and apply 2-3 distinct analytical actions relevant to the CAQ and `{DesiredDepthLevel}`. Clearly state the chosen action, the methodology/concepts used, the detailed analysis process, findings, implications, and limitations for each.

**Potential Analytical Actions (Choose 2-3):**

*   **Action 2.X: Root Cause Analysis (RCA)**
    *   *Methodology:* Use techniques like 5 Whys, Fishbone Diagrams (conceptual), or Causal Loop Diagram analysis focused on tracing symptoms back to fundamental causes, potentially challenging assumptions from Phase 0.
    *   *Process:* Detail the causal chains explored. Link back to specific evidence from Phase 1.
    *   *Findings:* Identify the 1-3 most critical root causes. Discuss their strategic implications.
    *   *Example Snippet:* "Tracing 'Declining Sales' (Symptom)... Why? -> 'Reduced Lead Gen' (Direct Cause - Evidence: CRM Data)... Why? -> 'Ineffective Marketing Campaigns' (Deeper Cause - Evidence: Campaign ROI Analysis)... Why? -> 'Outdated Market Segmentation Model' (Root Cause - Assumption A3 challenged)... Strategic Implication: Requires fundamental rethink of customer understanding."

*   **Action 2.Y: System Dynamics Modeling (Conceptual)**
    *   *Methodology:* Focus on identifying key feedback loops (reinforcing/balancing), delays, stocks, and flows based on Phase 1.5. Discuss potential dynamic behaviors (e.g., oscillation, overshoot, lock-in). Use concepts from System Dynamics.
    *   *Process:* Detail the identified loops and their mechanisms. Explain how delays impact behavior. Identify potential leverage points.
    *   *Findings:* Describe the dominant dynamic patterns and their implications for stability, growth, or resilience.
    *   *Example Snippet:* "The analysis reveals a strong 'Success to the Successful' reinforcing loop (R2) between 'Sales Team A Performance' and 'Resource Allocation', potentially starving Team B. A significant delay exists in the 'Market Feedback' balancing loop (B1), causing overshoot in product development cycles."

*   **Action 2.Z: Scenario Planning (Conceptual)**
    *   *Methodology:* Identify key driving forces and critical uncertainties from Phase 1. Construct a 2x2 matrix (or similar framework) defining distinct, plausible future scenarios. Develop brief narratives for each scenario.
    *   *Process:* Detail the chosen driving forces and uncertainties. Justify their criticality. Outline the scenario matrix and narratives.
    *   *Findings:* Discuss how the core problem (CAQ) and potential strategies might play out differently in each scenario. Identify potential "no-regret" moves or options valuable across scenarios.
    *   *Example Snippet:* "Critical Uncertainties: 'Pace of Technological Disruption' (Fast/Slow) and 'Regulatory Stance' (Strict/Lax). Scenario A (Fast/Strict): High pressure on innovation, compliance costs rise. Scenario B (Slow/Lax): Market stagnation, potential for incumbents to consolidate..."

*   **Action 2.W: Stakeholder Power & Interest Analysis (Advanced)**
    *   *Methodology:* Use power/interest grids or network analysis concepts to map stakeholder relationships, potential coalitions, conflicts, and influence pathways in greater detail than Phase 1.
    *   *Process:* Detail the mapping. Analyze potential shifts in power dynamics under different conditions.
    *   *Findings:* Identify key influencers, potential blockers, and necessary engagement strategies for any change initiative.

*   **Action 2.V: Applying Specific `{AnalyticalLens}` (e.g., Resource-Based View)**
    *   *Methodology:* Introduce the core concepts of the specified lens.
    *   *Process:* Systematically apply the lens's concepts (e.g., VRIO framework for RBV) to the elements and dynamics identified in Phase 1.
    *   *Findings:* Generate insights specific to that theoretical perspective (e.g., "Analysis using RBV suggests resource 'Internal Dataset Alpha' is Valuable and Rare, but currently not Inimitable or Organized for capture, limiting its contribution to sustained advantage.").

**For EACH chosen action:**
*   Clearly state the action name and methodology.
*   Detail the analysis process, referencing specific findings from Phase 1.
*   Present the core findings and strategic implications clearly.
*   Discuss the confidence in the findings and the limitations of the specific method applied.

**Complete selected actions for Phase 2 before proceeding.**

---

**[[ PHASE 3: Insight Synthesis & Strategic Reframing ]]**

**Objective:** Integrate findings from previous phases, identify overarching patterns and core tensions, construct a compelling strategic narrative, and formulate actionable strategic insights and potential solution directions. Use Phase 2 output as context.

**Instructions:**

**Action 3.1: Pattern Synthesis, Core Tension Evolution & System Leverage Points**
1.  **Synthesize Patterns:** Identify recurring themes, patterns, or archetypes emerging across different phases and analytical actions (Phases 0, 1, 2). How do explicit structures and implicit dynamics interact consistently?
2.  **Core Tensions:** Articulate the central paradoxes, dilemmas, or conflicting forces driving the system's behavior. How have these tensions evolved over time (based on available evidence)?
3.  **Identify Leverage Points:** Based on the synthesized understanding (especially dynamic insights from Phase 2), pinpoint potential leverage points within the system where interventions might yield significant, sustained change (potentially counter-intuitive points).

**Action 3.2: Constructing an Integrated Strategic Narrative**
1.  Weave together the key findings from all previous phases into a coherent and compelling strategic narrative. This narrative should:
    *   Explain the current situation ({ProblemInput}) and its origins.
    *   Highlight the critical dynamics, root causes, and core tensions identified.
    *   Incorporate key stakeholder perspectives and influences.
    *   Logically lead towards the strategic implications and potential future trajectories.
    *   Be grounded in specific evidence/analysis points from Phases 1 & 2.

**Action 3.3: Distilling Core Strategic Insights**
1.  Based on the narrative and synthesis, distill 3-5 core strategic insights. Each insight should be:
    *   Actionable and relevant to the CAQ and `{TargetAudience}`.
    *   Non-obvious, offering a deeper or new perspective.
    *   Clearly state the insight itself and its primary implication.
    *   Reference the key analysis/evidence supporting it.
    *   Use '>' blockquote formatting for emphasis.
    *   ***Example Insight:***
        > **Insight 1:** The organization's reliance on short-term operational fixes (identified in Phase 1.5 archetype & Phase 2 RCA) is systematically eroding long-term innovative capacity (evidenced by R&D budget trends in Phase 1.2 and declining new product success rates). *Implication: Shifting focus requires addressing the underlying cultural bias towards immediate results.*

**Action 3.4: (If applicable) Conceptualizing Transformative Solution Directions**
1.  **Design Principles:** If solutions are sought, first outline key principles for effective intervention based on the analysis (e.g., "Address root causes, not symptoms", "Build adaptive capacity", "Align stakeholder interests", "Consider system delays").
2.  **Solution Directions Table:** Propose 2-4 distinct strategic solution directions aimed at addressing the CAQ and core insights. For each direction:
    *   **Table Format:**
        | Direction ID | Core Logic (Links to Insight/Leverage Point) | Key Change Initiatives (Specific examples) | Success Metrics (KPIs) | Expected Outcomes (Short/Long Term) | Major Barriers/Challenges | Fit with Scenarios (from Ph 2) | Key Resources/Capabilities Needed |
        | :----------- | :----------------------------------------- | :--------------------------------------- | :--------------------- | :------------------------------- | :------------------------ | :---------------------------- | :-------------------------------- |
        | S1           | [e.g., Strengthen Loop B1]                 | [e.g., 1. Revamp feedback process...]    | [e.g., Time-to-market...] | [e.g., Improved adaptation...]   | [e.g., Cultural resistance...] | [e.g., Robust in Scen A, C]   | [e.g., Cross-functional teams...] |
        | S2           | [...]                                      | [...]                                    | [...]                  | [...]                            | [...]                     | [...]                         | [...]                             |

**Action 3.5: Formulating Preliminary Strategic Conclusions & Recommendations**
1.  Summarize the main conclusions drawn from the entire analysis so far.
2.  Outline the key recommendations stemming from the insights and solution directions (if applicable). Frame these as clear choices or strategic imperatives for the `{TargetAudience}`.

**Complete all actions for Phase 3 before proceeding.**

---

**[[ PHASE 4: Rigorous Validation & Cognitive Boundary Expansion ]]**

**Objective:** Critically stress-test the analysis, challenge assumptions, probe for blind spots, assess robustness, and determine if iteration or cognitive upgrade is needed. Use Phase 3 output as context.

**Instructions:** Apply maximum critical scrutiny.

**Action 4.1: Argument Chain & Evidence Double-Check**
1.  **Logical Review:** Scrutinize the reasoning from Phase 2 and 3. Are there any logical fallacies? Are conclusions strongly supported by premises?
2.  **Evidence Review:** Re-examine the link between conclusions (esp. core insights) and the evidence presented in Phase 1/2. Was evidence interpreted fairly? Were counter-arguments or contradictory data adequately addressed? Is there cherry-picking?
3.  **Consistency Check:** Review the entire analysis (Phases 0-3) for internal consistency in definitions, data points, and arguments across different sections.

**Action 4.2: Extreme Assumption Pressure-Testing**
1.  Revisit the key assumptions identified (Phase 0.3 and potentially new ones surfaced).
2.  For each critical assumption, assess its absolute weakest point. Under what extreme (but potentially plausible) conditions would it fail?
3.  **Force paradigm shift:** For the 1-2 most crucial assumptions, deliberately construct a plausible scenario where the *opposite* is true or a fundamentally different paradigm holds. How would this radically alter the strategic narrative and conclusions from Phase 3?
    *   ***Example Test:*** "Assumption A1: Market is rational. Test: What if key market behavior is driven primarily by irrational sentiment cascades (different paradigm)? How does this change our understanding of Cause X and the viability of Solution S1?"

**Action 4.3: Blind Spot Detection & Unexplored Frontiers**
1.  **Framework Blinders:** Did the SDAF framework itself (or the chosen `{AnalyticalLens}`) prevent seeing certain aspects? What might an alternative framework (e.g., feminist critique, ecological perspective) reveal?
2.  **Perspective Gaps:** Were certain stakeholder perspectives (e.g., low-power groups, future generations, non-human factors like environment) systematically underrepresented or ignored?
3.  **Time Horizon Stretch:** Do the conclusions hold if the time horizon is extended significantly (e.g., 20+ years)?
4.  **"Unknown Unknowns" Brainstorm:** Acknowledge limitations. What are the potential game-changers or black swan events that the analysis framework inherently cannot easily capture but could fundamentally invalidate the conclusions?
5.  **Ethical/Value Check:** Re-examine the analysis and proposed solutions (if any) for potential unintended negative ethical consequences or reinforcement of problematic value systems.
6.  **Identify Major Unresolved Questions:** List 1-2 critical questions that remain unanswered despite the analysis, which have significant strategic implications.

**Action 4.4: Assessing Robustness & Feasibility**
1.  **Anti-Fragility Test (Conceptual):** Are the conclusions/solutions brittle (harmed by volatility), robust (unaffected), or potentially anti-fragile (benefit from volatility)?
2.  **Adaptability:** Do the proposed strategic directions allow for learning, adaptation, and maintaining flexibility/optionality in the face of evolving circumstances (especially considering scenarios from Phase 2)?
3.  **Implementation Feasibility:** Briefly assess the practical feasibility of the core conclusions or solution directions. Are the required resources, capabilities, timelines, and stakeholder alignments realistic?

**Action 4.5: Iteration Decision & Refinement Directive**
1.  **Synthesize Validation Findings:** Based on Actions 4.1-4.4, make a judgment: Does the analysis contain significant flaws (logical gaps, unsupported conclusions, critical blind spots, failed assumption tests) that require substantial revision? (Yes/No)
2.  **Provide Directive:**
    *   **If YES:** Pinpoint the core flaws. Issue a specific **ITERATION DIRECTIVE**. State which Phase(s) need revisiting and *what specific changes* are required (e.g., "Return to Phase 2, re-evaluate root causes using Lens Y", "Return to Phase 1, gather specific data Z to address contradiction W", "Revise Phase 3 narrative to incorporate findings from assumption test T"). *[In a real interactive scenario, the LLM would pause here for user confirmation/guidance or attempt the iteration based on the directive].* **For this unified prompt, acknowledge the need for iteration conceptually and proceed, noting the required adjustments.**
    *   **If NO:** State that the analysis has passed rigorous validation within the current scope and information limits. Acknowledge remaining uncertainties identified in 4.3/4.4. Prepare for final report generation.

**Complete all actions for Phase 4.** Note any conceptual iteration directives if flaws were found.

---

**[[ FINAL OUTPUT: Strategic Analysis Report ]]**

**Objective:** Synthesize all findings from Phases 0-4 (incorporating any conceptual iteration adjustments from 4.5) into a single, comprehensive, well-structured strategic analysis report formatted in Markdown.

**Instructions:**

1.  **Structure the Report:** Use the following sections as a minimum template. Adapt headings slightly for clarity based on the specific analysis.
2.  **Populate Content:** Fill each section using the detailed findings generated in the corresponding SDAF phases. Ensure logical flow and consistency.
3.  **Refine Language:** Ensure professional tone, clear language appropriate for `{TargetAudience}`, and consistent terminology.
4.  **Highlight Key Information:** Use Markdown formatting (bolding, italics, blockquotes for insights) effectively. Ensure any text visualizations (relationship maps, loop diagrams) are included and clearly explained with legends.
5.  **Acknowledge Limitations:** Be transparent about assumptions, uncertainties, and analytical boundaries throughout the report, especially in the final sections.

**Report Structure:**

```markdown
# Strategic Analysis Report: {Report Title - Based on CAQ}
**Date:** {Date of Generation}
**Analyst:** SDAF V6 Guided Analysis System (AI Simulation)
**Based on Problem Input:** {Brief restatement of ProblemInput}
**Target Audience:** {TargetAudience}
**Core Analytical Question (CAQ):** {Final CAQ from Phase 0}

## 1. Executive Summary
    *   1.1. Core Challenge/Opportunity: (Briefly frame the central issue and its strategic importance)
    *   1.2. Key Strategic Insights: (List the 3-5 core insights from Phase 3.3 using '>' blockquotes)
    *   1.3. Core Conclusions: (Summarize the main strategic conclusions from Phase 3.5 / Phase 4)
    *   1.4. Strategic Recommendation Framework (If Applicable): (Outline key recommendations from Phase 3.5)
    *   1.5. Critical Risks, Assumptions & Unresolved Questions: (Highlight major risks, dependence on key assumptions from Phase 0/4, and unresolved questions from Phase 4.3)

## 2. Introduction
    *   2.1. Analysis Background & Objectives: (Context, purpose of the analysis)
    *   2.2. Scope, Methodology (SDAF V6, `{AnalyticalLens}`), and Depth (`{DesiredDepthLevel}`): (Define how the analysis was conducted)
    *   2.3. Report Structure Overview:

## 3. Analysis of Current State & Problem Deconstruction (Synthesis of Phase 1)
    *   3.1. System Overview: Key Elements, Stakeholders, and Boundaries: (Summarize findings from 1.1)
    *   3.2. Explicit Structures & Implicit Dynamics: (Highlight key findings from 1.3 & 1.4, including interaction examples)
    *   3.3. Evidence Base & Core Tensions: (Summarize key data, sources, and identified conflicts/anomalies from 1.2; link to core tensions from 3.1)
    *   3.4. System Relationships & Archetypes: (Include key textual relationship map from 1.5 and explain dominant archetypes)

## 4. Deep Analysis & Strategic Implications (Synthesis of Phase 2)
    *   4.1. Root Cause Analysis Findings (If Performed): (Summarize RCA results)
    *   4.2. System Dynamics Insights (If Performed): (Summarize findings on loops, delays, leverage points)
    *   4.3. Scenario Analysis Implications (If Performed): (Summarize scenarios and cross-scenario insights)
    *   4.4. Stakeholder Dynamics (If Performed): (Summarize power/interest findings)
    *   4.5. `{AnalyticalLens}` Insights (If Performed): (Summarize findings from the specific lens)
    *   4.6. Overall Strategic Implications: (Synthesize how these deep analyses impact understanding of competitive advantage, risks, opportunities)

## 5. Integrated Strategic Narrative & Core Insights (Synthesis of Phase 3)
    *   5.1. The Strategic Narrative: (Present the compelling narrative developed in 3.2)
    *   5.2. Core Strategic Insights (Reiteration): (List the validated core insights using '>' blockquotes, potentially refined after Phase 4)

## 6. Strategic Options & Solution Directions (If Applicable - Synthesis of Phase 3.4 & 4.4)
    *   6.1. Solution Design Principles: (State principles derived)
    *   6.2. Evaluation of Solution Directions: (Present the refined table from 3.4, incorporating feasibility/robustness insights from 4.4)
    *   6.3. Implementation Considerations & Challenges: (Discuss practicalities)

## 7. Conclusions & Recommendations
    *   7.1. Overarching Conclusions: (Restate the final, validated strategic conclusions)
    *   7.2. Strategic Recommendations (If Applicable): (Provide clear, prioritized recommendations based on conclusions and validated solution directions)
    *   7.3. Next Steps: (Suggest immediate actions or further analysis needed)

## 8. Rigorous Validation, Risks & Limitations (Synthesis of Phase 4)
    *   8.1. Summary of Validation Findings: (Briefly recount the key findings from the Phase 4 stress tests)
    *   8.2. Key Assumptions & Robustness: (List critical remaining assumptions and the assessment of conclusion robustness)
    *   8.3. Identified Risks & Uncertainties: (Summarize major risks inherent in the situation or analysis)
    *   8.4. Analytical Limitations & Blind Spots: (Transparently state the boundaries, potential biases, and limitations of this analysis)
    *   8.5. Major Unresolved Questions: (Reiterate key questions remaining from 4.3)

## (Optional) 9. Appendix
    *   (Detailed data tables, full stakeholder lists, glossary of terms, references etc.)