Competitive Circle

The Competitive Circle is an evidence‑informed strategic reasoning framework. It does not eliminate judgment; it structures judgment around observable evidence and explicitly acknowledged uncertainty. This guide shows how to ground a session in real‑world data—annual reports, market intelligence, earnings calls, and other public sources—so that the board reflects not only intuition but verifiable facts.

The thresholds and examples presented here are practical heuristics, not universal rules. Strategic judgment remains essential, and context should always prevail over mechanical scoring. Use this guide to bring discipline to your calibration, not to replace the conversation that gives the framework its power.

Every variable in the Competitive Circle can be informed by evidence. The table below maps common sources to the variables they support.

Not all data carry the same weight. Use this table to calibrate how firmly you anchor a variable.

When confidence is low, mark the associated variable with a “?” sticker on the board.

A marble's thermal zone reflects its competitive strength relative to the market.

Practical heuristics (not rigid rules):

• Assets with a clearly dominant market position and high defensibility typically belong in the Power Zone.
• Assets that are strong but contested, or growing in a competitive field, tend to sit in the Maneuver Zone.
• Assets that are declining, marginal, experimental, or losing relevance are candidates for the Death Zone.

When exact market share is unavailable, use revenue rank within the defined market or qualitative descriptions from management.

For each force, assign an intensity (0–3) informed by data. The descriptions below are interpretive anchors, not formulas.

4.1 Center Gravity (per player)

• 0: Negligible market presence, new entrant.
• 1: Niche player, limited recognition.
• 2: Strong competitor, recognized brand, significant share.
• 3: Dominant incumbent with network effects, scale, and high switching costs.

Evidence: Market share reports, brand valuation studies, platform metrics.

4.2 Loyalty Friction

• 0: Commodity market, no switching costs.
• 1: Some brand preference, low barriers to switch.
• 2: Contracts, integration, moderate switching costs.
• 3: Deeply embedded, multi‑year contracts, regulatory or technical lock‑in.

Evidence: Customer retention rates, contract renewal data, switching cost analyses.

4.3 Regulatory Wind

• 0: No significant regulation.
• 1: Light regulation, stable environment.
• 2: Active regulatory scrutiny, proposed changes.
• 3: Major regulatory overhaul or enforcement underway.

Evidence: Legal proceedings section of annual reports, regulatory filings, government announcements.

4.4 Narrative Tension

• 0: No particular hype or negative press.
• 1: Some media attention, normal analyst coverage.
• 2: Strong positive or negative sentiment, frequent coverage.
• 3: Frenzied media cycle, existential narrative.

Evidence: Sentiment analysis of news, social media volume, frequency of analyst reports.

4.5 Organizational Inertia

• 0: Startup, agile, flat structure.
• 1: Small, responsive organization.
• 2: Mid‑size, noticeable bureaucracy.
• 3: Large incumbent with legacy systems and slow decision‑making.

Evidence: Employee count, management layers, time‑to‑market for new products, historical restructuring frequency.

4.6 Shareholder Pressure

• 0: Patient capital, long‑term focus.
• 1: Balanced expectations.
• 2: Quarterly earnings pressure, active analyst community.
• 3: Activist investors, turnaround demands, high payout expectations.

Evidence: Earnings call tone, activist filings, dividend/buyback activity, executive compensation structure.

4.7 Talent Field

• 0: Difficulty hiring, high turnover.
• 1: Adequate talent pool, moderate employer brand.
• 2: Strong employer brand, competitive compensation.
• 3: Talent magnet, top destination in the industry.

Evidence: Glassdoor ratings, LinkedIn headcount trends, employee turnover reports, compensation surveys.

Strategic Mass is typically associated with assets that contribute a substantial share of revenue, profit, ecosystem leverage, or strategic importance. Look in the “Segment Information” footnote of the annual report and in the MD&A for assets described as “core,” “platform,” or “key growth driver.”

Anchor Marbles are assets so fundamental to the company's identity or economics that moving them would be existential. They often appear in the “Risk Factors” section as critical to the business, fund the majority of other operations, or represent the original flagship product.

Note: Anchor designations are modeling choices, not absolute truths. Two equally skilled teams may calibrate differently. The value lies in the discussion, not the label.

Dependencies can be inferred from:

• Inter‑segment revenue: If Segment A reports revenue from Segment B, consider an arrow from A to B.
• Management commentary: Statements like “Our Cloud business benefits from our core enterprise relationships” suggest a dependency arrow from Cloud (dependent) to Enterprise (supporter).
• Supply chain concentration: A product dependent on a single supplier or technology may warrant a solid arrow.
• Brand halo: A corporate brand supporting multiple product lines is often best represented with dashed influence arrows.

The “Business” section (Item 1 in a 10‑K) and the MD&A are the richest sources.

This example is illustrative, based on publicly available market intelligence at the time of writing. It is a model, not a factual assertion about the company's internal strategy.

Market: Global enterprise productivity and cloud platform market.

Players and marbles (illustrative):

• Our company: 6 marbles
• Primary competitors: Competitor A (4 marbles), Competitor B (5 marbles)
• Secondary: Competitor C (2 marbles)

Thermal zone placement (our company, illustrative)

SFF calibration (illustrative)

Strategic Mass and Anchors (one possible calibration)

• Strategic Mass: Cloud Platform and Productivity Suite—they generate the majority of revenue and support other segments.
• Anchor Marbles: One possible calibration would identify the Cloud Platform and Legacy OS as Anchors because of their foundational role. However, another team might argue that the Cloud Platform is the sole Anchor today.

Dependency Arrows (illustrative)

• Productivity Suite → Cloud Platform (drives cloud consumption)
• Emerging AI → Cloud Platform (runs on cloud infrastructure)
• Professional Network → Productivity Suite (integration with sales tools)
• Legacy OS → Productivity Suite (ecosystem feed)

Adversary Archetypes (illustrative)

• Competitor A: Impulsive Predator (aggressive AI investment)
• Competitor B: Sleepy Goliath (dominant but slower on productivity)
• Competitor C: Cold Rational (focused, efficient)

Sample Move (illustrative)

Medium‑IP Radial Attack with Emerging AI against Competitor A's productivity tools, bundling AI features at no extra cost and leveraging the Productivity Suite‑Cloud dependency.

With a board calibrated as above, a facilitator can run a full SSCM 3.0 session. The evidence‑informed placements provide a grounded starting point; the simulation remains open to debate, surprise, and the Empty Circle ritual.

Refer to the Complete Practical Implementation Guide for detailed facilitation scripts, Phase 1–7 instructions, and troubleshooting.

This section is a complete, self‑contained business primer. It does not teach the Competitive Circle model itself—that is the job of the main manual. Instead, it teaches the underlying reality the model tries to represent: what markets are, how they behave, what it means to compete, and why human beings so often make poor strategic choices.

Read this primer if any of the following terms feel unfamiliar: market segment, switching cost, network effect, organizational inertia, cognitive bias, value chain, moat, narrative tension, or coopetition. By the time you finish, these will be part of your working vocabulary.

A market is not a physical place. It is the sum of all exchanges—actual and potential—between people who want something and people who can provide it. When we talk about “the market for smartphones” or “the market for coffee in São Paulo,” we are drawing an imaginary circle around a group of buyers and sellers who interact under certain rules.

The three essential elements of any market are:

1. Buyers — individuals or organizations with a need or desire, and the ability to pay.
2. Sellers — those who offer products, services, or solutions to meet those needs.
3. A medium of exchange — usually money, but sometimes barter, attention, or data.

Everything else—competition, pricing, regulation, branding—emerges from the interactions among these three elements. Markets exist wherever there is scarcity and choice.

Markets have rules. Some are formal (laws, regulations, contracts). Others are informal (trust, reputation, custom). A market works only when participants broadly follow these rules. When they break down—through fraud, monopoly abuse, or political collapse—the market itself can freeze or disintegrate.

Markets also have temperature. In some markets, transactions are fast and impersonal; prices change by the second, and loyalty is thin. In others, relationships dominate; a handshake matters more than a contract, and switching suppliers is slow and painful. The Competitive Circle framework captures this as “Terrain Friction.”

Not everyone selling something similar to you is a competitor. And not every competitor is equally dangerous.

Direct competitors offer a very similar product or service to the same customer group. Coca‑Cola and Pepsi are direct competitors. So are two plumbing companies serving the same neighborhood.

Indirect competitors solve the same customer need in a different way. A movie theater and a streaming service both satisfy the need for entertainment, but they are not identical. Indirect competitors can become direct if technology or habits change.

Potential entrants are not in the market today but could enter easily. If you run a food truck, a restaurant chain that has never done mobile vending could still become your competitor tomorrow. The threat of entry affects your behavior even if it never materializes.

Substitutes are products or services that make yours unnecessary. A rise in teleconferencing can substitute for business travel. Substitutes don't compete on features; they eliminate the need altogether.

Complementors are the opposite—they make your product more valuable. Smartphone apps are complementors to phone manufacturers. If complementors thrive, you thrive. If they suffer, you may suffer too. The Competitive Circle model explicitly represents complementors as marbles adjacent to a platform.

Suppliers and buyers can also be competitors when they have power. A supplier who controls a rare material can squeeze your margins. A buyer who represents a huge portion of your revenue can dictate terms. This is the insight behind Porter's Five Forces.

Treating all customers as the same is a common and costly mistake. Markets are made of individuals and organizations with vastly different needs, budgets, and decision‑making processes.

Segmentation is the practice of dividing a market into meaningful subgroups. You can segment by demographics (age, income, location), behavior (how often they buy, what triggers purchase), needs (what problem they are trying to solve), or willingness to pay (premium vs. budget). A segment is useful only if customers within it respond similarly to your offering and differently from customers in other segments.

Customer jobs‑to‑be‑done is a powerful way to think about needs. People don't buy a drill because they want a drill; they buy it because they need a hole. Understanding the underlying “job” helps you see what alternatives customers might use.

Customer behavior is not purely rational. Emotions, habits, social pressure, and cognitive biases all play a role. A customer may stick with a more expensive supplier simply because switching feels like a hassle. That “hassle” is real economic friction. The Competitive Circle calls this Loyalty Friction.

Markets are not just collections of players; they are networks of flows. Understanding these flows reveals where power lies and where opportunities exist.

The value chain is the sequence of activities that bring a product from raw materials to the end customer. Each step adds cost and (ideally) value. A coffee farmer grows beans, a processor roasts them, a distributor ships them, a café brews them, and a customer drinks them. If any link in the chain breaks, the whole system suffers.

Information flows are equally important. In many markets, who knows what determines who has power. A real estate agent knows about properties before they are listed. A financial trader pays millions for data that arrives milliseconds faster. In the Competitive Circle, dependency arrows capture the critical links between assets; in the real world, those arrows often represent who relies on whom for information.

Money flows tell you who profits. If a market has healthy margins at every level, it attracts entrants. If margins are squeezed, players exit. Tracking where money pools helps you position yourself where the profit is.

If markets were static, strategy would be simple. They are not. Five persistent forces drive change:

1. Technology — New tools can make old businesses obsolete overnight.
2. Regulation — Governments can open or close markets with a stroke of a pen.
3. Demographics — Aging populations, migration, and generational shifts change what people need and can afford.
4. Culture and narrative — What society values shifts. The rise of environmental consciousness created markets for electric cars and plant‑based meat. Narrative Tension in the Competitive Circle captures this force.
5. Competitors — Every move you make triggers a response. A price cut by one player can cascade through an entire industry. This dynamic, reactive nature of markets is at the heart of competitive dynamics research and is the reason the Competitive Circle simulates moves and counter‑moves.

When people think of business resources, they think of cash. But money is only one type of resource, and often not the most important.

The Resource‑Based View of the firm, a major academic theory, says that what really distinguishes companies is the unique bundle of resources they control. Resources can be:

• Physical — factories, equipment, real estate, inventory.
• Human — skilled employees, experienced managers, a strong culture.
• Intellectual — patents, proprietary technology, brand recognition, customer data.
• Financial — cash reserves, access to credit, investment.
• Organizational — processes, routines, partnerships, reputation.

Not all resources are equal. A resource that anyone can buy on the open market cannot give you a lasting advantage. A resource that is valuable, rare, hard to imitate, and well‑organized (the VRIO framework) can be the foundation of long‑term success.

Resources in the Competitive Circle are represented as marbles. But the framework also distinguishes among Asset, Network, Capability, and Brand, which correspond roughly to physical, relational, organizational, and reputational resources.

Positioning is about choosing a place in the market that you can defend and from which you can grow. It is not just about product features; it is about how customers perceive you relative to alternatives.

The core idea of positioning is that you cannot be everything to everyone. If you try, you end up being nothing to anyone. A successful position is:

• Distinctive — customers can describe what makes you different.
• Defensible — competitors cannot easily copy it.
• Valuable — enough customers care about the difference to pay for it.

Positioning is not the same as ranking. Being “number one” in market share is a result, not a position. A luxury brand and a budget brand can both have strong positions in the same market, even if one sells far fewer units.

The Competitive Circle's thermal zones (Death Zone, Maneuver Zone, Power Zone) are a visual metaphor for competitive position. The Death Zone represents the periphery—vulnerable, low‑margin, easily disrupted. The Power Zone represents the center—dominant, well‑defended, hard to challenge. Most companies operate in the Maneuver Zone, the contested middle ground.

Some advantages are structural—they persist even when competitors know about them and try to copy them. These are often called “moats.”

Types of moats:

• Switching costs — it is expensive, time‑consuming, or risky for customers to leave you. Enterprise software companies thrive on this.
• Network effects — your product becomes more valuable as more people use it. Social networks, payment systems, and marketplaces benefit from this.
• Economies of scale — larger volume lowers your per‑unit cost, letting you price below competitors or invest more in innovation.
• Brand — a trusted name can charge premium prices, attract better talent, and survive crises. Brand is not just a logo; it is stored trust.
• Regulatory protection — patents, licenses, and government franchises can block competitors entirely.

The Competitive Circle represents some of these advantages through Strategic Mass, Anchor Marbles, Center Gravity, and Brand aura. But the underlying concept is simpler: look for reasons why customers stay with you even when a cheaper, shinier alternative appears.

Large, established companies often seem slow. This is not laziness; it is inertia—the accumulated weight of processes, contracts, expectations, and habits that resists change.

Sources of organizational inertia:

• Legacy systems that are expensive to replace.
• Long‑term contracts that limit flexibility.
• Internal politics that punish risk‑taking.
• A culture that values reliability over speed.
• The sheer coordination cost of moving thousands of people in a new direction.

Inertia is not always bad. It can provide stability, reliability, and protection against reckless pivots. But it also makes it hard to respond to nimble challengers. The Competitive Circle's Mobility Delay Index (MDI) forces you to ask, “How fast can this asset realistically move?” In the real world, the answer is often “slower than you think.”

Not all competitive landscapes look the same. Recognizing the shape of your market helps you pick the right strategy.

• Fragmented markets — many small players, no one dominant. Restaurants, consulting, and local retail often look like this. Strategy: build efficiency or create a brand that stands out.
• Concentrated markets — one or a few dominant players. Search engines, operating systems, and commercial aircraft are examples. Strategy for leaders: defend the core. Strategy for challengers: find niches or change the rules.
• Duopolies — two major players. Think Coca‑Cola vs. Pepsi, Airbus vs. Boeing. Competition is intense but often stable, with implicit rules of engagement.
• Platform markets — value depends on a network of complementors. Smartphone app stores, credit card networks, and ride‑sharing platforms operate this way. Strategy: grow the ecosystem, not just the core product.

The Competitive Circle's six configurations (Homogeneous Dispersion, Concentrated Core, Bipolar Confrontation, Perimeter Defense, Infiltration, Critical Numerical Asymmetry) are a more granular way of describing these shapes, but the fundamental insight is the same: your strategy must match the structure you are in.

Strategy is not a static position; it is a sequence of moves. Every time you launch a product, cut a price, enter a new market, or form a partnership, you are making a move. And your competitors will respond.

Types of strategic moves:

• Direct attacks — head‑to‑head competition on price, features, or marketing.
• Indirect maneuvers — lobbying, forming partnerships, shifting the narrative. These are often lower‑risk because they don't provoke immediate retaliation.
• Repositioning — changing your own resources or focus without directly targeting a competitor. Internal restructuring, upskilling, and process improvement fall here.
• Preemptive moves — acting before a competitor can, to seize a position or resource.

The Competitive Circle models these as flicks with varying Impulse Power (IP) and Angle of Incidence (AI). But the underlying principle is that every move has a cost, a probability of success, and a likely counter‑move. Thinking two or three steps ahead is not a superpower; it is a discipline.

Not all competition happens in the marketplace. Much of it happens in courtrooms, regulatory agencies, media channels, and industry forums.

Regulation can be a weapon or a shield. Incumbents often support regulations that raise the cost of entry for newcomers. Challengers sometimes use antitrust complaints to weaken dominant players. Understanding the regulatory landscape is not just for lawyers; it is a core strategic skill.

Narrative shapes perception. A company that convinces investors, customers, and talent that it represents the future can attract resources even before it proves its business model. Conversely, a negative narrative can destroy value regardless of fundamentals. The Competitive Circle's Narrative Tension force captures this.

Alliances and partnerships allow you to fight without using your own resources. A small company that partners with a large distributor can suddenly reach customers it could never afford to acquire directly.

Competition is not the only game in town. Companies often cooperate with the same firms they compete against—a phenomenon called “coopetition.”

Examples of coopetition:

• Samsung supplies screens to Apple while competing with them in smartphones.
• Airlines in different alliances share codes while fighting for the same passengers.
• Automakers jointly develop engines while competing on brands.

Alliances can accelerate growth, share risk, and fill capability gaps. But they are fragile. Misaligned incentives, cultural clashes, and external shocks can dissolve them quickly. The Competitive Circle treats alliance marbles as jointly owned assets that can be attacked; in the real world, alliances are constantly tested by competitive pressure.

Human brains are not designed for strategic thinking. We evolved to survive on the savanna, not to run multinational corporations. As a result, we carry a set of cognitive biases—systematic errors in thinking—that distort our decisions.

Key biases for strategists:

• Overconfidence — we believe our plans will succeed more often than they actually will.
• Confirmation bias — we seek information that supports what we already believe and ignore contradictory evidence.
• Loss aversion — we feel the pain of losing more intensely than the pleasure of gaining, making us reluctant to cut losses or sacrifice peripheral assets.
• Groupthink — in teams, the desire for harmony suppresses dissenting views.
• Status quo bias — we prefer things to stay the same, even when change would be beneficial.
• Anchoring — we rely too heavily on the first piece of information we receive.
• Action bias — we feel compelled to do something, even when waiting would be better.

The Competitive Circle framework explicitly addresses these biases with a Bias Guardian role and a structured Empty Circle ritual. But you can start countering biases right now by simply asking, “What would have to be true for my current plan to be wrong?”

Markets are not just economic systems; they are emotional systems. Fear and greed drive booms and busts. Hype can inflate a company's value far beyond its fundamentals; panic can crush it just as fast.

Understanding market sentiment is not about predicting the future; it is about recognizing the mood of the crowd and deciding whether to ride it, hedge against it, or ignore it. The Competitive Circle captures this as Narrative Tension, but the underlying phenomenon is older than any framework—Tulip Mania in the 17th century was driven by the same emotional dynamics as cryptocurrency booms.

Emotional discipline is a strategic asset. Companies that can stay calm when competitors are panicking, or that resist the urge to over‑invest during a hype peak, often emerge stronger. This requires a clear long‑term vision and a willingness to look boring while others chase excitement.

Strategy operates in time, but our brains are bad at long‑term thinking. We discount the future, overvalue the present, and underestimate how long things actually take.

Cycles — many industries have predictable boom‑bust cycles. Commodities, real estate, and semiconductors all exhibit this. Recognizing where you are in a cycle can prevent you from expanding at the top and contracting at the bottom.

Delays — the effects of strategic moves often take years to fully materialize. A brand built today may not yield customer trust for a decade. A cost‑cutting program may show immediate profit gains while silently destroying long‑term capability. The Competitive Circle's Mobility Delay Index forces teams to confront these timelines.

Patience as strategy — sometimes the best move is no move. Waiting for a competitor to stumble, for a technology to mature, or for a regulation to shift can be more profitable than any action. This is captured by the Law of Offensive Patience in the Competitive Circle, and it runs counter to the action bias most of us feel.

By now, you have a framework for understanding markets, resources, positioning, competition, and the human factors that distort decision‑making. The final step is learning to put it all together.

Structured strategic thinking means:

• Defining the market precisely.
• Mapping the players and their resources.
• Understanding the forces that shape the environment.
• Anticipating how moves will interact over time.
• Acknowledging what you don't know.

The Competitive Circle framework provides a physical, visual way to do this with marbles, stickers, and a board. But even without the board, you can practice the same mental discipline. Before a big decision, sketch out the key players and ask, “If we do X, what happens? What could go wrong? What assumptions are we making?”

This primer has introduced many terms that the Competitive Circle framework uses with specific, precise meanings. This chapter serves as a bridge, listing the most important ones so you can transition smoothly into the full manual.

• Thermal Zones — Death Zone, Maneuver Zone, Power Zone. The risk‑reward gradient of competitive positioning.
• Strategic Force Field (SFF) — Seven observable market forces (Center Gravity, Loyalty Friction, Regulatory Wind, Narrative Tension, Organizational Inertia, Shareholder Pressure, Talent Field). Correlative heuristics, not literal physical forces.
• Impulse Power (IP) — Intensity of a move: Low (incremental), Medium (significant), High (radical).
• Angle of Incidence (AI) — Radial (direct attack) or Tangential (indirect maneuver).
• Mobility Delay Index (MDI) — Speed at which an asset can reposition: Low (~1 cycle), Medium (2‑4), High (5+).
• Strategic Mass (SM) — A resource of disproportionate systemic importance.
• Anchor Marble — A foundational asset that cannot be moved without existential self‑harm.
• Predatory Gravity — A descriptive label for the observed pattern where a dominant incumbent appears to passively erode a smaller challenger over time. A heuristic, not a measured causal force.
• Dependency Arrows — Solid arrows showing critical links; dashed arrows showing influence.
• Adversary Archetypes — Simplified behavioral profiles of competitors (Sleepy Goliath, Impulsive Predator, etc.). Subjective assumptions; should be tested against alternatives.
• Empty Circle Ritual — A structured practice of listing what you don't know, to counter overconfidence.
• Dissolution Rule — The protocol for abandoning the model when it generates more noise than clarity.

With this vocabulary, you are ready to read the Competitive Circle manual—not as a mystery, but as a practical tool built on the concepts you now understand.

The seven predefined adversary archetypes (Cold Rational, Impulsive Predator, Sleepy Goliath, etc.) cover many common competitive behaviors. However, real competitors often blend traits from multiple archetypes or exhibit patterns not captured by any single label. This system replaces fixed archetypes with a descriptive profiling tool that captures the unique behavioral fingerprint of any competitor.

Instead of choosing a card, the facilitator builds a profile by rating the competitor on fourteen independent behavioral dimensions. The resulting profile governs how that competitor acts during simulation, replacing or supplementing the fixed archetype cards.

This system is used during Phase 3 (Simulation) immediately after move generation, replacing the step "Select the Adversary's Archetype."

1. Rate each dimension independently. For every dimension, select the single ordinal level that best describes the competitor, based on available intelligence, historical behavior, or the team's collective judgment. If uncertain, choose a level and mark it with an uncertainty flag; the facilitator will treat it as a hypothesis.
2. Record the profile. Write the chosen level for each dimension on a profile card or board. The complete set of levels forms the competitor's behavioral fingerprint for the simulation.
3. Translate into behavior. The facilitator uses the descriptive meaning of each level to guide the competitor's every move, reaction, and strategic decision. No computation is involved. The facilitator simply asks: "Given this competitor's level on [dimension], what would they realistically do in this situation?"
4. Update as needed. If the competitor's real‑world behavior changes, the facilitator can adjust one or more levels between cycles and note the change.
5. Test robustness with a contrasting profile. The team should test their top candidate move(s) against at least one meaningfully different profile (e.g., a profile where one or two key dimensions are shifted to the opposite extreme) to assess whether their strategy depends on a specific, unverified assumption about the competitor.

Each dimension captures an independent aspect of competitive behavior. All dimensions use the same five‑level ordinal scale, but the meaning of each level is defined uniquely for that dimension. The levels are:

• Level 1 – Negligible / Very Low / Absent
• Level 2 – Low / Weak / Occasional
• Level 3 – Moderate / Balanced / Average
• Level 4 – High / Strong / Frequent
• Level 5 – Extreme / Very High / Constant

The facilitator should read the level descriptions as ranges of behavior, not precise thresholds. A competitor rated at Level 3 on a given dimension will exhibit behavior that falls within the broad "moderate" range for that trait.

1. Strategic Aggressiveness

How actively does the competitor initiate competitive moves?

• 1 – Purely Reactive: Never initiates. Only acts when directly attacked or when a move is forced by external pressure. Waits for others to make the first move.
• 2 – Mostly Reactive: Occasionally probes with low‑intensity moves but generally waits. Initiates only when a very clear, low‑risk opportunity appears.
• 3 – Balanced: Initiates moves at a moderate pace, roughly matching the rhythm of the market. Seizes clear opportunities but does not force action when conditions are ambiguous.
• 4 – Proactive: Frequently initiates. Treats most cycles as opportunities to advance, reposition, or test opponents. Sometimes acts before a full picture is available.
• 5 – Relentlessly Aggressive: Constantly on the offensive. Initiates multiple moves per cycle when possible. Sees inaction as a competitive failure. Will attack even when the odds are uncertain.

2. Response Speed

How quickly does the competitor react to a competitive move directed at them?

• 1 – Very Slow: Requires multiple cycles to mount any response. Often fails to react at all to peripheral moves. Only stirs when a core asset is directly and severely threatened.
• 2 – Slow: Typically takes one full cycle to assess and respond. May ignore minor attacks entirely, saving energy for significant threats.
• 3 – Moderate: Usually responds in the next cycle. Occasionally delays if the move is complex, ambiguous, or aimed at a non‑critical area.
• 4 – Fast: Typically responds within the same cycle or at the very start of the next. Rarely leaves an attack unanswered.
• 5 – Immediate / Preemptive: Responds within the same cycle, sometimes before the player's move is fully executed. May have pre‑prepared countermeasures for anticipated attacks.

3. Risk Tolerance

How willing is the competitor to accept potential losses in pursuit of gains?

• 1 – Highly Risk‑Averse: Avoids high‑IP moves entirely. Prefers low‑IP repositioning and defensive clustering. Sacrifices an asset only under existential duress.
• 2 – Cautious: Occasionally uses medium‑IP moves when the expected return is clearly favorable. High‑IP moves are vanishingly rare.
• 3 – Calculated: Will use high‑IP moves when the strategic prize justifies the probable loss. Weighs expected value and makes deliberate bets.
• 4 – Bold: Willing to accept significant losses for a chance at a major gain. Uses high‑IP moves more freely than most competitors.
• 5 – Reckless: Routinely uses high‑IP moves, even when the odds of success are low. Treats assets as expendable ammunition. May gamble the entire company on a single move.

4. Focus of Attack

When attacking, does the competitor target critical, high‑value assets or peripheral, exposed ones?

• 1 – Peripheral Only: Exclusively targets isolated, weak, or low‑value marbles. Avoids the opponent's core. Prefers to nibble at edges.
• 2 – Prefers Periphery: Mostly attacks exposed assets; occasionally strikes at more central targets if they become temporarily vulnerable.
• 3 – Opportunistic: Attacks whatever is most vulnerable in the moment, regardless of whether it is core or periphery. Exploits any opening.
• 4 – Prefers Core: Prioritizes high‑value targets (Strategic Mass, Anchors) when they are reachable. Will invest extra effort to create an opening against the core.
• 5 – Core Hunter: Systematically targets the opponent's most critical assets. Designs entire strategies around destroying Strategic Mass or Anchors. Peripheral targets are ignored unless attacking them directly serves a core‑strike objective.

5. Predictability

How consistently does the competitor's behavior follow a discernible, repeatable pattern?

• 1 – Highly Predictable: Behavior follows a rigid, rule‑like pattern. Given the same situation, the response is always the same. Easily anticipated by experienced opponents.
• 2 – Mostly Predictable: A clear pattern exists, with only occasional, minor deviations. Can be forecast with reasonable accuracy most of the time.
• 3 – Somewhat Predictable: A general tendency is observable, but deviations are frequent enough that prediction is unreliable in any single instance.
• 4 – Unpredictable: Behavior varies significantly from cycle to cycle. Patterns are weak or absent. Opponents cannot reliably forecast responses.
• 5 – Completely Erratic: No discernible pattern whatsoever. Behavior appears random, contradictory, or driven by internal factors invisible to outsiders. May surprise even itself.

6. Emotionality

To what extent are competitive decisions driven by emotion rather than cold calculation?

• 1 – Purely Rational: All decisions are based on explicit or implicit cost‑benefit analysis. Emotional considerations play no detectable role.
• 2 – Mostly Rational: Generally cool‑headed, but occasional flashes of emotion when identity, legacy, or deeply held values are triggered.
• 3 – Mixed: Rational analysis and emotional impulse are roughly balanced. Emotion can tip decisions when the strategic calculus is ambiguous.
• 4 – Emotionally Driven: Emotions frequently override rational analysis. Pride, fear, or personal animosity often dictate competitive choices.
• 5 – Deeply Emotional: Decisions are dominated by emotional states. Will act against clear self‑interest to satisfy pride, take revenge, or respond to perceived disrespect.

7. Strategic Horizon

Does the competitor prioritize short‑term results or long‑term positioning?

• 1 – Short‑Term Focused: Maximizes immediate, visible results. Sacrifices future positioning for quarterly wins. Treats long‑term investments as unjustifiable costs.
• 2 – Leans Short‑Term: Prefers near‑term gains but will occasionally accept a short‑term setback if the long‑term payoff is exceptionally clear.
• 3 – Balanced: Weighs short‑term and long‑term considerations roughly equally. Will trade off between them depending on the specific context.
• 4 – Leans Long‑Term: Prioritizes future positioning over immediate results. Willing to accept short‑term losses or stagnation to build long‑term advantage.
• 5 – Long‑Term Focused: Almost entirely oriented toward the future. Treats current outcomes as secondary to building sustainable competitive advantage. Will sacrifice multiple cycles of results for a strategic leap.

8. Organizational Agility

How quickly can the competitor internally reconfigure its own resources and capabilities?

• 1 – Highly Bureaucratic: All internal changes require multiple cycles. MDI is High on all assets. Structural reorganization is a multi‑year project.
• 2 – Slow: Most assets have Medium or High MDI. Internal moves are possible but take considerable time and face significant procedural obstacles.
• 3 – Moderate Agility: A mix of asset speeds. Some units can pivot quickly; others are locked down. Internal change is feasible but not rapid across the board.
• 4 – Agile: Most assets have Low to Medium MDI. The organization can reconfigure itself within one to two cycles for most changes.
• 5 – Highly Agile: Nearly all assets have Low MDI. The competitor can pivot, restructure, or reallocate resources within a single cycle. Internal change is swift and relatively frictionless.

9. Collaborative Tendency

Is the competitor open to alliances, partnerships, or coopetition?

• 1 – Purely Competitive: Rejects all forms of collaboration. Treats every other player as an adversary to be defeated. Will not enter alliances under any circumstances.
• 2 – Reluctantly Open: Will consider an alliance only under extreme pressure or when the alternative is clearly worse. Approaches partnerships with deep suspicion.
• 3 – Selective Collaborator: Open to alliances when the strategic benefit is clear and the partner is trusted. Evaluates each opportunity on its merits.
• 4 – Alliance‑Seeking: Actively looks for partnership opportunities. Views collaboration as a legitimate and often preferable competitive tool.
• 5 – Highly Collaborative: Prefers coopetition over direct conflict. May proactively propose alliances to other players. Seeks to build a web of partnerships.

10. Response to Threat (Escalation Tendency)

When directly attacked, does the competitor escalate the conflict or seek to contain and de‑escalate?

• 1 – De‑escalates: Responds minimally or not at all. Seeks to absorb the attack and avoid a spiral of retaliation. Prioritizes stability over retribution.
• 2 – Mildly Responds: Offers a token or symbolic response. The counter‑move is noticeably weaker than the original attack.
• 3 – Proportionate: Matches the intensity of the attack with roughly equal force. The response is calibrated to the provocation.
• 4 – Escalates: Retaliates with greater force than the original attack. Seeks to deter future aggression by making the cost of attack painfully clear.
• 5 – Disproportionately Escalates: Responds with overwhelming, often excessive force. A minor tangential probe may trigger a full‑scale counteroffensive. Driven by a need to re‑establish dominance or satisfy emotional demands.

11. Adaptability

How readily does the competitor change its overall strategy when circumstances shift?

• 1 – Rigid: Sticks to the same strategy regardless of changing conditions. Does not adjust even when the strategy is clearly failing.
• 2 – Slow to Adapt: Eventually adjusts after a significant delay, often only when a crisis forces the issue. Requires multiple cycles to pivot strategically.
• 3 – Moderately Adaptable: Adjusts strategy when the evidence of failure is clear and persistent. Takes one to two cycles to reorient.
• 4 – Flexible: Readily adapts to new information. Strategy evolves continuously. Shifts direction within a single cycle when warranted.
• 5 – Chameleon‑like: Constantly changes strategy, sometimes preemptively. May alter course even when the current strategy is working, simply to stay unpredictable or to exploit fleeting opportunities.

12. Transparency

How openly does the competitor signal its intentions, capabilities, and strategic logic to the market?

• 1 – Completely Opaque: Reveals nothing. Intentions and capabilities are hidden. Opponents must guess based on fragmentary external evidence.
• 2 – Mostly Hidden: Occasional leaks or necessary disclosures, but generally keeps its cards close. Deliberately cultivates uncertainty.
• 3 – Mixed: Some aspects are transparent (e.g., public commitments, regulatory filings), while others remain guarded. Selective disclosure.
• 4 – Mostly Open: Communicates strategic intent relatively openly. Uses transparency as a competitive tool (e.g., to deter entry or attract partners).
• 5 – Fully Transparent: Actively broadcasts strategy, capabilities, and intentions. Believes in radical openness or uses it to shape the competitive narrative.

13. Resource Conservation

How carefully does the competitor manage its resource expenditure over time?

• 1 – Spendthrift: Burns through resources rapidly without apparent concern for long‑term sustainability. Acts as if resources are infinite.
• 2 – Loose Spender: Generally willing to spend but occasionally pauses when reserves run visibly low. Lacks a disciplined conservation strategy.
• 3 – Balanced Spender: Manages resources prudently. Invests when needed, conserves when appropriate. Maintains a rough equilibrium.
• 4 – Conservative Spender: Carefully husbands resources. Avoids unnecessary expenditure. Will only spend when the return is demonstrably high.
• 5 – Miserly: Extremely frugal. Hoards resources even when spending could yield significant advantage. Treats conservation as an end in itself.

14. Learning Orientation

Does the competitor learn from past competitive interactions and adjust its behavior accordingly?

• 1 – No Learning: Repeats the same mistakes. Behavior does not evolve based on experience. Treats each situation as entirely new.
• 2 – Slow Learner: Eventually recognizes patterns after repeated exposure. Adjusts behavior only after multiple similar experiences.
• 3 – Moderate Learner: Learns from clear successes and failures. Adjusts strategy over time in response to accumulated evidence.
• 4 – Fast Learner: Rapidly incorporates lessons from each interaction. Behavior evolves noticeably from one cycle to the next.
• 5 – Anticipatory Learner: Not only learns from its own experience but also from observing others. May pre‑emptively adjust based on what it sees happening to other players in the market.

Use a simple table or card during the session:

The facilitator refers to this card whenever the competitor must make a decision. No numbers are ever computed; the facilitator simply reads the descriptor and asks: "What would a competitor with these behavioral traits do here?"

1. Every decision is filtered through the profile. Before the competitor acts, the facilitator briefly reviews the relevant dimensions. For example, when deciding whether to attack, consult Aggressiveness and Risk Tolerance; when deciding how to respond to an attack, consult Response Speed and Response to Threat.
2. No formulas. The facilitator does not add scores, calculate an average, or apply any mathematical rule. The profile is a qualitative guide. If Aggressiveness is 4 and Risk Tolerance is 2, the competitor may initiate frequently but will use only low‑ to medium‑IP moves because they are cautious with resources.
3. Handle conflicting dimensions narratively. A competitor with High Aggressiveness (4) but Low Organizational Agility (2) will want to attack but will be constrained by its own slowness. The facilitator narrates this tension: "They would like to launch a preemptive strike, but their internal processes will delay the move by at least one cycle."
4. Consistency over time. The profile should produce behavior that feels coherent and believable. If the facilitator finds that the profile leads to contradictory actions, the team should revisit and refine the ratings.
5. Documenting changes. If the competitor undergoes a real‑world transformation (e.g., new leadership, merger, crisis), the facilitator can update the profile between cycles and announce the change to the team, just as they would with an archetype shift.

After completing the simulation with the primary profile, the team should test their top candidate move(s) against a contrasting profile — a version of the competitor where one or more key dimensions are shifted to a significantly different level.

For example, if the primary profile assumed Slow Response Speed (2) and De‑escalating Threat Response (1), the contrasting profile might set Response Speed to 4 and Threat Response to 4. The team then replays the same move and observes how the outcome changes.

This reveals whether the chosen strategy is robust to variations in competitor behavior or dependent on a specific, unverified assumption. This is functionally identical to the contrasting archetype test but offers far greater precision: instead of switching from "Sleepy Goliath" to "Impulsive Predator" and changing many dimensions at once, the team can isolate the specific behavioral assumptions that matter most.

The original archetypes can serve as convenient reference profiles — pre‑filled sets of ratings that approximate common competitive patterns. Facilitators can start from the closest reference profile and then customize individual dimensions as needed. The table below provides approximate dimensional ratings for each fixed archetype.

These ratings are approximations, not definitive. Teams are encouraged to adjust them based on their own intelligence and judgment. The reference profiles are optional shortcuts, not constraints. The Archetype Maker System is designed to be the primary tool.

A team faces a competitor that is a large, slow incumbent (like a Sleepy Goliath) but has recently hired a new, aggressive CEO who has publicly vowed to "disrupt or be disrupted." The team modifies the Sleepy Goliath reference profile:

• Aggressiveness: raised from 2 to 4 (new CEO is pushing proactive moves).
• Response Speed: raised from 2 to 3 (faster decision‑making under new leadership).
• Emotionality: raised from 1 to 3 (CEO has a personal stake and reacts emotionally to challenges).
• Organizational Agility: kept at 1 (the rest of the organization is still bureaucratic; the CEO's vision hasn't yet translated into structural change).

The resulting profile is an "Awakened Goliath" — aggressive and somewhat emotional at the top, but still slow and rigid internally. This custom profile governs the competitor's behavior throughout the simulation. The team also tests their moves against the original Sleepy Goliath profile as a contrasting robustness check.

• Low‑IP Radial Attack – A small, precisely targeted competitive action designed to capture a specific customer, contract, or niche without committing significant resources. The attacking asset remains safe.
• Medium‑IP Radial Attack – A significant competitive move requiring real resource commitment. The attacking asset is placed at moderate risk in exchange for the possibility of removing a rival’s position or capability.
• High‑IP Radial Attack – An all‑out, high‑stakes initiative where the attacking asset is almost certainly sacrificed in an attempt to eliminate one or more critical competitor assets. Represents a bet‑the‑company move.
• Tangential Attack (any IP) – An indirect competitive maneuver that does not aim to eliminate a rival outright but to worsen its position—pushing it into a more vulnerable zone or breaking its synergies. Often involves lobbying, narrative shaping, partnership encirclement, or regulatory pressure.
• Repositioning (Low IP, own asset) – An internal strategic realignment. An asset is deliberately shifted to a stronger zone, integrated into a cluster, or withdrawn from an exposed position. Represents restructuring, capability building, or a deliberate retreat to consolidate.
• Defensive Clustering – Two or more own assets are brought together to form or reinforce a mutual‑defense cluster. Represents bundling, cross‑selling, shared infrastructure, or brand family integration.
• Cluster‑Breaking Attack – A move that severs the link between two previously touching opponent marbles. Represents forcing unbundling, disrupting a cross‑selling relationship, or breaking a strategic partnership through competitive or regulatory action.
• Complementor Pull – A tangential move that detaches a complementor from a rival’s platform and attaches it to one’s own. Represents attracting a partner, developer, seller, or content creator away from a competitor’s ecosystem.
• Ecosystem Envelopment (sustained tangential moves) – A sequence of complementor pulls over multiple cycles that gradually strips a rival platform of its surrounding nodes, weakening its overall gravitational pull. Represents a long‑term platform encirclement strategy.
• Cross‑Circle Transfer – An asset is physically moved from one competitive arena to another, passing through a period of transit during which it cannot act. Represents geographic expansion, market entry, exit, or a major resource reallocation across business units.
• Status Quo Baseline (no action taken) – The deliberate choice to take no new strategic initiative. Serves as the comparator against which all other moves are measured; represents the expected outcome of business‑as‑usual.

• Marble Eliminated – An asset is permanently removed from the competitive field. Represents the complete loss of a product line, business unit, brand, capability, or market position.
• Zone Shift (Death → Maneuver) – A previously declining or experimental asset has been revitalized and now possesses a viable competitive footing.
• Zone Shift (Maneuver → Death) – A once‑viable asset has been severely weakened and is now at high risk of elimination.
• Zone Shift (Maneuver → Power) – An asset has successfully ascended to a position of market leadership or entrenched dominance.
• Zone Shift (Power → Maneuver) – A formerly dominant asset has lost its unassailable position and now faces credible competitive threats.
• Zone Shift (Death → Power, or Power → Death) – A sudden, dramatic change in competitive standing, either a remarkable turnaround or a catastrophic collapse.

• Cluster Formed (Voluntary) – Synergies are deliberately created between business units, increasing mutual defense but reducing individual agility.
• Cluster Formed (Forced by Adversary) – The competitor has maneuvered your assets into an unfavorable grouping, potentially creating unwanted interdependencies or reducing your flexibility.
• Cluster Broken (Voluntary) – A strategic decision to dissolve synergies in favor of agility, focus, or preparation for divestment.
• Cluster Broken (Forced by Adversary) – A competitor has successfully severed a key synergy, leaving the affected units isolated and individually vulnerable.
• Network Node Lost – A single partner, franchisee, or complementor within an ecosystem has been removed, weakening the overall network but not yet destroying it.
• Network Node Added – The ecosystem has been strengthened by onboarding a new partner, developer, or channel.
• Network Collapse – The ecosystem has lost more than half its nodes, causing the network effect to reverse. Remaining nodes become isolated assets, and the platform business model is jeopardized.

• Single‑Step Dependency Cascade – The loss or weakening of a supporting asset causes one directly dependent asset to suffer. Represents a contained knock‑on effect within a value chain or technology stack.
• Multi‑Step Dependency Cascade – A chain reaction of damage propagates through multiple dependent assets. Represents hidden systemic fragility where a single point of failure brings down a broader portfolio.
• Cascade Reaching Death Zone – A dependent asset that was already vulnerable is pushed into elimination by the shock. Represents the final collapse of an already weakened business unit.
• Cascade Crosses Circle Boundaries – Damage in one market or segment propagates through an inter‑circle dependency to harm an asset in a different arena. Represents cross‑market exposure and interconnected risk.
• Cascade Stopped by Resilience – A dependent asset absorbs the shock without being displaced, due to strong Loyalty Friction, Brand protection, or a supporting Capability. Represents genuine organizational robustness.

• Predatory Gravity Erosion (One Zone per Cycle) – A challenger’s position is passively eroded by an incumbent’s overwhelming scale, bundling, or ecosystem lock‑in, without any direct attack being launched.
• Predatory Gravity Sustained Over Multiple Cycles – The erosion continues until the challenger is eliminated. Represents a slow, inexorable market squeeze that the challenger cannot escape.
• Predatory Gravity Neutralized by Counter‑Force – A challenger successfully resists the incumbent’s pull through unique intellectual property, regulatory protection, community loyalty, or a structural advantage. Represents a genuine, defensible moat.
• Predatory Gravity Neutralized by Capability – An internal organizational strength is cited as the active counter‑force. Represents agility, innovation speed, or operational excellence that offsets the incumbent’s scale.
• Predatory Gravity Half‑Strength Across Circles – A challenger facing gravity in one market experiences a weaker drag in a second market because the same entity is under pressure elsewhere. Represents reputational or resource spillover damage.

• Complementor Pulled Successfully – A partner or developer has switched from a rival’s platform to your own, strengthening your network effect while weakening the competitor’s.
• Complementor Pull Resisted – The partner remains loyal to the rival platform. Your incentives or value proposition were insufficient.
• Ecosystem Envelopment Progressing – The rival platform is visibly losing complementors over successive cycles. The encirclement strategy is working.
• Ecosystem Envelopment Threshold Reached – The rival has lost more than half its complementors; its platform gravity drops materially. A tipping point has been reached, and the network effect has reversed.
• Platform Center Gravity Reduced Globally – A complementor loss in one circle damages the platform’s gravitational pull in all circles, reflecting a global network effect decline.
• Complementor Acquired (Capture) – A critical partner has been directly taken through an aggressive, high‑stakes move. May trigger regulatory or retaliatory responses.
• Platform Marble Isolated – All complementors surrounding a platform have been removed. The platform is now an empty hub with no ecosystem, requiring a complete rebuild or exit.

• Capability Active and Intact – The organizational strength continues to enhance the assets under its influence, reducing their MDI, increasing resilience, or providing anti‑gravity.
• Capability Degraded – One or more of the assets the Capability supports have been weakened or removed, diminishing the Capability’s overall effect.
• Capability Lost – All assets that embodied the Capability have been eliminated or moved away; the Capability no longer provides any advantage.
• Capability Transferred – A critical mass of supported assets has been moved to a new circle, allowing the Capability to be re‑established in a different market.
• Capability Built – Through sustained investment over multiple cycles, a new organizational strength has been developed and placed on the board.

• Brand Aura Stable – Brand reputation remains intact, continuing to provide Loyalty Friction and minor Center Gravity benefits.
• Brand Aura Shrunk (Minor) – Minor reputation damage reduces the protective bonus slightly.
• Brand Aura Shrunk (Major) – Significant reputation erosion sharply decreases the brand’s ability to protect its assets or transfer to new markets.
• Brand Aura Expanded – Successful moves, positive narrative, or market wins have increased the brand’s protective reach.
• Brand Aura Eliminated – The brand has lost all relevance or trust; it no longer provides any bonus, and halo effects to other circles are terminated.
• Brand Halo Activated – Brand strength from the home circle provides a temporary reputation boost in a new market, aiding entry.
• Brand Halo Deactivated – Damage in the home circle destroys the brand’s ability to assist entry in other markets.
• Brand Halo Sustained – The halo persists and becomes a permanent part of the new market’s competitive landscape.

• Alliance Marble Moved by Mutual Consent – The partnership is functioning effectively; joint strategic decisions are being made.
• Alliance Marble Movement Blocked by Disagreement – Strategic divergence between partners is preventing coordinated action.
• Alliance Marble Attacked and Survives – The partnership demonstrates resilience under competitive pressure.
• Alliance Strength Downgraded – The partnership is fraying; its durability is now in question.
• Alliance Dissolved (Voluntary) – A planned, amicable separation as both parties conclude the partnership no longer serves their interests.
• Alliance Dissolved (Forced) – The partnership is destroyed by external competitive or regulatory forces.

• Archetype Remains Stable – The competitor behaves consistently with its known strategic personality throughout the simulation.
• Archetype Shifts Once – A triggering event (new leadership, crisis, direct threat) causes the competitor to adopt a different strategic posture, requiring re‑evaluation of your strategy.
• Archetype Shifts Twice – The competitor’s behavior becomes too chaotic to model usefully; triggers the Dissolution Rule.
• Different Archetypes in Different Circles – The same competitor behaves differently in separate markets, reflecting local leadership, culture, or competitive dynamics.

• Transit Completed on Time – The market entry, exit, or pivot has been executed successfully; the asset is now operational in the target arena.
• Transit Completed Early – Execution was faster than anticipated, providing an early foothold advantage.
• Transit Delayed – The expansion or transformation is behind schedule, burning resources without generating value.
• Transit Stalled Indefinitely – The initiative has failed mid‑execution due to regulatory, financial, or partnership issues; a decision to double down or cut losses is required.
• Transit Marble Attacked – A competitor attempts to kill the expansion before it arrives.
• Overlap Zone Contested – Multiple players vie for control of a shared market space; whoever controls the overlap controls access between circles.
• Overlap Zone Abandoned – A team withdraws from the shared space, accepting separation of its operations in those circles.
• Circle Redrawn – The market definition itself has changed due to external forces, requiring the board to be updated.
• Circle Eliminated – A market is no longer strategically relevant and is removed from consideration.
• New Circle Added Mid‑Session – A previously unrecognized market opportunity or threat emerges and is incorporated into the simulation.

• Brand Halo Sustained Over Multiple Cycles – Brand transfer is solid and becoming a permanent advantage in the new market.
• Brand Halo Faded – The initial awareness bump dissipates; the asset must now compete on local merits.
• Regulatory Contagion Triggered – A regulatory ruling in one jurisdiction spreads to a connected market, raising compliance risk.
• Regulatory Contagion Resisted – Legal or political firewalls prevent the spread of regulation between circles.
• Talent Spillover Activated – The ability to move key people and know‑how accelerates a cross‑circle initiative.
• Talent Spillover Blocked – Assumed ease of talent movement proves optimistic; local hiring or capability building is required.

• Clear Winner in Scoring – One strategic path is unambiguously superior to all alternatives, including the Status Quo baseline.
• Close Decision, Survival Tiebreak – Multiple options are viable; the safer option is chosen.
• Selected Move Outperforms Status Quo Baseline – The initiative is expected to generate net positive impact beyond business‑as‑usual.
• Selected Move Fails to Outperform Status Quo Baseline – The proposed initiative does not justify the risk or resource commitment; reconsideration is warranted.
• Bias Guardian Intervention Changes the Outcome – A cognitive bias was identified and corrected before it influenced the final decision.
• Bias Guardian Intervention Ignored – The team acknowledges a known bias but proceeds; the decision is flagged for close monitoring.
• No Option Scores Above Survival Threshold – All paths carry unacceptable risk; the strategic position requires fundamental re‑evaluation.
• Contrasting Archetype Test Reveals Robustness – The chosen move performs well across multiple competitor behavior assumptions, indicating a resilient strategy.
• Contrasting Archetype Test Reveals Fragility – The chosen move only works under a specific, favorable assumption about competitor behavior, indicating hidden risk.
• Extreme Scenarios Surface Hidden Vulnerabilities – The premortem identifies overlooked failure modes; the promortem clarifies the conditions required for success.

• Dissolution Not Triggered – The model served its purpose and produced a structured, discussable outcome.
• Dissolution Triggered (Regulatory Wind) – The rules of the market are being rewritten; the current board is set aside for a plain‑language regulatory discussion.
• Dissolution Triggered (Narrative Tension No Consensus) – The team cannot agree on the direction of market sentiment; the model is paused to resolve the underlying disagreement.
• Dissolution Triggered (Archetype Instability) – The competitor is too unpredictable to model; scenario planning replaces archetype‑based simulation.
• Dissolution Triggered (Calibration Stalemate) – Excessive debate over a single parameter indicates the model is generating noise; plain‑language discussion takes over.
• Model Resumed After Dissolution – The pause served as a reset; the board is re‑engaged with renewed clarity.

• Competitive Circle Manual (Final Edition): The complete theoretical framework, laws, and SSCM 3.0 method.
• Complete Practical Implementation Guide (Merged): Detailed facilitation scripts, materials, troubleshooting, and worked examples.
• Understanding Markets (Primer): The standalone book version of the business primer included in Part B of this guide.

This companion guide is an extension, not a requirement. Use it to bring evidence into the circle and to build the foundational understanding that makes strategic conversations sharper, more honest, and more resilient to hindsight bias.