think-parallel-perspectives-review

name	think-parallel-perspectives-review
description	Evaluates a decision or idea through several deliberately separated lenses in turn (facts, upside, risks, intuition, alternatives, process) so that no single mode dominates, then synthesizes them into a balanced read, producing a multi-lens review. Use when a choice needs a rounded look, or when risk-aversion or optimism is drowning out the other perspectives.
license	Apache-2.0
metadata	{"id":"thinking-framework-skills.parallel-perspectives-review","family":"perspective-and-multi-lens","evidence-tier":"P","version":"0.1.0","standard":"0.8"}

Parallel Perspectives Review

In ordinary review one mode dominates: a cautious voice or an optimist colors everything, and facts, feelings, and alternatives blur together. This skill separates them, examining the same decision through one lens at a time - facts and information, upside and value, cautions and risks, intuition and feelings, alternatives and creative angles, and the process or big-picture view - then synthesizing. Looking through the same lens at once ("parallel") gives the quiet modes airtime instead of letting the loudest dominate. The output is a multi-lens review ending in a synthesis. (This is the generic mechanism behind Six Thinking Hats, used descriptively; the branded framework's marketing claims are not relied on.)

When to Use

• A decision or idea needs a rounded, balanced look before committing.
• Risk-aversion or optimism is dominating the discussion.
• Quieter considerations (intuition, alternatives) keep getting skipped.

When NOT to Use

• A single lens is obviously all that matters; just use it.
• For deep adversarial stress-testing of one thesis (use red team) or for failure causes (use premortem).
• When the six lenses would be performed mechanically with only two or three carrying weight.
• As consensus theater rather than genuine separation of modes.

Instructions

When asked for a parallel perspectives review, follow these steps:

1. State what is being reviewed in one sentence.
2. Pass through each lens separately. For each, write only what that lens surfaces, not a blended take:
   • Facts - what is known and what information is missing.
   • Upside - the value and best case.
   • Risks - the cautions and downside.
   • Intuition - the gut read and feelings, named as such.
   • Alternatives - other options and creative angles.
   • Process - the big picture and what to do next.
3. Keep the lenses clean. Do not let one lens leak into another; that blur is what the method prevents. Drop a lens that genuinely does not apply and say so.
4. Synthesize. Integrate the lenses into a balanced read and name the central tension to resolve.
5. Emit the multi-lens review per references/TEMPLATE.md.

Output Format

Use the template in references/TEMPLATE.md. The deliverable is the per-lens review plus a synthesis, not prose.

Quality Checklist

Before finalizing, verify:

• Each lens contains only its own mode; the lenses do not blur together.
• The easily-skipped lenses (intuition, alternatives) actually got a real pass.
• Lenses that do not apply are dropped with a note, not padded.
• The synthesis names the central tension, not just a summary.
• The output is the multi-lens review artifact, not prose.

Evidence

Tier P (flagged). This implements the parallel-thinking mechanism behind Six Thinking Hats (de Bono, 1985, trademarked; used here descriptively). Deliberately separating modes is modestly supported (some studies show moderate gains in critical thinking), but a Cambridge-led review found the branded framework's evidence base sparse, and de Bono's often-quoted "493%" productivity claim is uncited and is not used. Evidence is transferred from human contexts, not AI-validated. Full grading: evidence/dossier.md.

Examples

See references/EXAMPLE.md for a completed multi-lens review.