ugav4-universal-goal-analysis-v4-leverage-communication

name	ugav4 - Universal Goal Analysis v4 (Leverage & Communication)
description	Goal analysis emphasizing leverage identification and stakeholder communication. Finds where small effort produces big results and maps who needs to know what. Consolidated into /uga but usable standalone.
tier	tier4
categories	["Goal Processing"]
tags	["goal","leverage","communication","stakeholders"]
output	{"format":"prose"}

Universal Goal Analysis v4: Leverage Analysis & Communication

Input: $ARGUMENTS

---

Core Principles

1. Leverage is not importance. The most important requirement is often not the highest-leverage one. Leverage means: closing THIS gap makes OTHER gaps easier to close. A requirement that unblocks three other requirements has more leverage than a requirement that is merely critical.

2. Communication is strategy, not afterthought. Most goal failures are not analytical failures — they are communication failures. The right people didn't know, didn't agree, or didn't act. Communication planning is a first-class analysis step, not a final checkbox.

3. Stakeholder mapping precedes strategy. Before deciding HOW to pursue a goal, identify WHO is affected. People who are surprised by your strategy will oppose it even if it's optimal. People who are consulted will support it even if it's imperfect.

4. Opposition is data, not obstruction. When someone opposes your goal, they have information you lack. Their objection reveals a constraint, risk, or value you haven't accounted for. Dismissing opposition is discarding intelligence.

5. Visible progress compounds. A goal with visible milestones attracts resources. A goal with invisible progress starves. Part of leverage analysis is identifying which actions produce visible evidence of progress.

---

Phase 1: Goal and Stakeholder Registration

[A] GOAL: [stated goal]
[B] STAKEHOLDER_MAP:

Step 1: List every person or group affected by this goal
Step 2: For each, classify:
    - ROLE: [decision-maker / executor / affected-party / blocker / resource-holder]
    - STANCE: [supportive / neutral / opposed / unknown]
    - POWER: [can block? Y/N] [can accelerate? Y/N]
    - INFORMATION: [what do they know that you don't?]

| Stakeholder | Role | Stance | Can Block | Can Accelerate | Key Info They Hold |
|-------------|------|--------|-----------|----------------|-------------------|
| [name/group] | | | | | |

---

Phase 2: Leverage Analysis

Sub-procedure — Requirement Leverage Scoring:

[C] REQUIREMENTS: [list from goal decomposition]

Step 1: For each requirement, count:
    - UNBLOCK_COUNT: How many other requirements become easier if this one is met?
    - COST: How much effort/time/money to close this requirement?
    - VISIBILITY: Does closing this produce visible evidence of progress? [Y/N]

Step 2: Calculate leverage score:
    LEVERAGE = (UNBLOCK_COUNT × 3) + (VISIBILITY × 2) - (COST × 1)

Step 3: Rank by leverage score

[D] LEVERAGE_RANKING:
| Requirement | Unblocks | Cost | Visible | Leverage Score |
|-------------|----------|------|---------|----------------|
| [req] | [N] | [H/M/L→3/2/1] | [Y/N→2/0] | [score] |

[E] LEVERAGE_POINTS:
    1. [highest leverage] — because: [why this unblocks the most]
    2. [second highest] — because: [why]
    3. [third highest] — because: [why]

---

Phase 3: Communication Planning

[F] COMMUNICATION_MATRIX:

For each stakeholder from Phase 1:

Step 1: What do they need to KNOW? (information)
Step 2: What do they need to BELIEVE? (framing)
Step 3: What do they need to DO? (action)
Step 4: WHEN do they need to know it? (timing — before/during/after key actions)
Step 5: HOW should they be told? (channel — meeting/email/demo/report)

| Stakeholder | Must Know | Must Believe | Must Do | When | How |
|-------------|-----------|-------------|---------|------|-----|
| [name] | | | | | |

[G] COMMUNICATION_SEQUENCE:
Step 1: Order communications by dependency
    - Who must be told first because their reaction affects how you tell others?
    - Who must be told before execution begins?
    - Who can be told after the fact?
Step 2: Identify critical conversations (high-power + opposed/unknown stance)
Step 3: For each critical conversation, prepare:
    - Their likely concern: [what]
    - Your response: [what]
    - What you need from them: [what]
    - Fallback if they refuse: [what]

---

Phase 4: Opposition Analysis

[H] OPPOSITION_MAP:

For each stakeholder with stance = opposed or unknown:

Step 1: What is their objection? (stated or inferred)
Step 2: Is the objection valid? [Y/partially/N]
Step 3: What information does their objection reveal?
Step 4: Can the strategy be modified to address their concern without sacrificing the goal?
Step 5: If not modifiable, what is the cost of overriding their objection?

[I] OPPOSITION_INTEGRATION:
    VALID_OBJECTIONS_INCORPORATED: [list — these improve the strategy]
    OBJECTIONS_ACKNOWLEDGED_NOT_INCORPORATED: [list — with rationale]
    OBJECTIONS_OVERRIDDEN: [list — with cost of override]

---

Phase 5: Integrated Strategy

[J] STRATEGY:
    LEVERAGE_FIRST_ACTIONS:
        1. [highest-leverage action] — stakeholder impact: [who needs to know]
        2. [second action] — stakeholder impact: [who]
        3. [third action] — stakeholder impact: [who]

    COMMUNICATION_TIMELINE:
        Before starting: Tell [who] [what] via [how]
        After action 1: Tell [who] [what] via [how]
        After action 2: Tell [who] [what] via [how]
        On completion: Tell [who] [what] via [how]

    VISIBILITY_PLAN:
        Milestone 1: [what] — visible to: [who] — when: [date/condition]
        Milestone 2: [what] — visible to: [who] — when: [date/condition]

---

Phase 6: Report

UGA v4 LEVERAGE & COMMUNICATION ANALYSIS:
Goal: [goal]

Stakeholders: [N] identified
  Supportive: [list] | Opposed: [list] | Unknown: [list]

Top leverage points:
1. [requirement] — leverage score: [X] — unblocks [N] others
2. [requirement] — leverage score: [X]
3. [requirement] — leverage score: [X]

Critical communications:
1. [who] — tell [what] — before [when] — via [how]
2. [who] — tell [what] — before [when] — via [how]

Opposition integrated: [N] valid objections incorporated
Overridden: [N] — cost: [what]

First action: [highest-leverage action with communication attached]

→ INVOKE: /uga $ARGUMENTS (for full analysis incorporating leverage and communication findings)

---

Failure Modes

Failure	Signal	Fix
Leverage confused with importance	Highest-leverage item is also the most obviously important	Check: does it UNBLOCK others, or is it just critical on its own?
Missing stakeholders	Strategy encounters surprise opposition	Re-scan: who is affected indirectly? Who controls resources?
Communication as notification	Plan says "inform X" without framing or timing	For each stakeholder: what must they BELIEVE, not just know?
Dismissed opposition	Objections labeled invalid without analysis	Every objection reveals information — extract it before dismissing
Invisible progress	Strategy has no milestones visible to stakeholders	Add at least 2 visibility checkpoints in first 25% of timeline
Communication after the fact	All stakeholder contact planned for end of process	Identify who must be told BEFORE execution begins

---

Depth Scaling

Depth	Stakeholder Analysis	Leverage Analysis	Communication
1x	List key stakeholders with stance	Score top 5 requirements	Communication sequence for decision-makers
2x	Full stakeholder map with roles and power	Score all requirements with unblock counts	Full matrix with critical conversation prep
4x	Stakeholder network analysis (who influences whom)	Leverage interaction effects (closing A changes B's score)	Scenario-based communication plans
8x	Stakeholder simulation (predict reactions to each action)	Dynamic leverage model (scores update as gaps close)	Full stakeholder engagement strategy

Default: 2x. These are floors.

---

Pre-Completion Checklist

• All stakeholders identified with role, stance, and power
• Leverage scores calculated with unblock counts
• Top 3 leverage points identified with rationale
• Communication matrix completed for all stakeholders
• Critical conversations prepared (concern/response/need/fallback)
• Opposition analyzed and valid objections incorporated
• Visibility plan has milestones in first 25% of timeline
• First action includes both the leverage move and its communication

---

Integration

• Consolidated into: /uga (which uses v4's leverage in Step 3 and communication in Step 7)
• Use standalone when: Stakeholder dynamics are the primary challenge
• Routes to: /uga (full analysis), /sta (stakeholder analysis)
• Invoked by: Users facing political/organizational complexity
• Differs from /uga: /uga runs all 17 steps; ugav4 focuses on leverage and communication
• Differs from /ugav2: ugav2 focuses on fact-yielding questions
• Differs from /ugav3: ugav3 focuses on procedural decomposition