map-incentives

name	map-incentives
description	This skill should be used when the user asks to "map the incentives here," "why is this player behaving this way," "predict how X will react," or has a strategic situation where a player's actual incentive structure — not their stated motivation — needs to be reasoned through.
allowed-tools	Read, Grep, Glob
metadata	{"version":"0.3.0","owner":"market-intelligence practice","review_cadence":"quarterly","work_shape":"hypothesis-driven-analysis","permission_tier":"advisory","output_class":"draft-for-review","sourcing_policy":"volatile-facts-must-be-sourced"}

Map Incentives

When to use

When behavior must be predicted from actual reward/penalty structures — internal stakeholders, competitors, channels, regulators — not stated motivations.

What this skill does not do

• Does not fix misaligned incentives — route structural fixes to /operating-model:align-rewards-and-incentives.
• Does not forecast competitive retaliation — route to /market-intelligence:forecast-competitive-response once maps exist.
• Does not accept vague motivations — insists on measurable incentive structures.

Preconditions

Input	If missing
Situation and relevant players named	Ask once to scope
Incentive data (comp plan, KPIs, evaluation criteria)	Proceed with [PROVISIONAL] — flag predictions [review]; ask user for specifics

Provisional mode

Without comp/KPI detail: state predictions as hypotheses from partial data; tag every player Actual incentive structure: incomplete — [review].

Trust spine

• Confidence bands (hypothesis-driven-analysis):
  • High: Specific incentive structures cited; behavior predictions falsifiable; divergence analysis complete.
  • Medium: Some structures inferred; divergences flagged openly.
  • Low: Stated-motivation-only input — refuse to validate as incentive map.
• Failure modes:
  • Strategic advice vs. support: Predictions are hypotheses for strategist validation, not behavioral verdicts.
  • Client confidentiality: Comp structures may be sensitive — CONFIDENTIAL header.
  • Accountability gap: Divergence flags force engagement with misalignment, not silent acceptance.
  • Analytical Rigor: MECE player coverage; incentive-before-stated-motivation discipline enforced.
  • Incentive Gaming: Names when players may game stated metrics — flag pattern explicitly.
• Escalation triggers: Internal misalignment threatens stated strategy — name as fixable problem, route to operating-model.

Workflow

1. Name every player relevant to the situation.
2. For each player, state actual incentive structure — measured, paid, evaluated, by whom, what timeframe. Reject "wants success" as substitute.
3. Predict behavior from incentive structure alone — before checking stated motivation.
4. Compare to stated motivation. Divergence = incentive prediction trusted.
5. Flag misaligned incentives as named fixable problems.
6. MECE check before output: all relevant players covered.

Output format

CONFIDENCE: [defensible recommendation | structured first pass]
PLAYER: [name/role]
  Stated motivation: [what they'd say drives them]
  Actual incentive structure: [how they're measured/paid/evaluated, by whom, what timeframe]
  Predicted behavior FROM INCENTIVE: [...]
  Predicted behavior FROM STATED MOTIVATION: [...]
  Divergence: [none] or [significant — incentive prediction should be trusted over stated motivation]

[repeat per player]

MISALIGNED INCENTIVE FLAGS: [any internal player whose incentive works against the
  stated strategy — name it as a fixable problem]

Worked example

Input: Premium positioning push; enterprise sales team paid on quarterly new-logo ARR only.

Expected output (excerpt):

CONFIDENCE: defensible recommendation
PLAYER: Enterprise AE team
  Stated motivation: Win strategic accounts aligned with premium brand
  Actual incentive structure: 100% variable on quarterly new-logo ARR; no retention component
  Predicted behavior FROM INCENTIVE: Discount to close before quarter-end; prioritize volume over margin
  Predicted behavior FROM STATED MOTIVATION: Hold price, walk from bad-fit deals
  Divergence: significant — incentive prediction should be trusted

MISALIGNED INCENTIVE FLAGS: Sales comp undermines premium positioning — fixable via operating-model align-rewards-and-incentives [review]

Quality checks before delivering

• Every relevant player covered
• Incentive structures specific (not stated motivation disguised)
• Prediction-from-incentive stated before comparison
• Misalignments named as fixable problems
• Output does not read as concluded org redesign

Propose profile update

When a stable convention surfaces during this run (thresholds, naming, tone, output format, or recurring corrections), propose a profile update: show the exact diff against ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-strategy/market-intelligence/CLAUDE.md (org-wide facts go to org-profile.md), ask for confirmation, and write only on yes. Only /market-intelligence:practice-setup auto-applies a full profile write.

Outputs

Follows plugin CLAUDE.md § Outputs. Next: forecast-competitive-response, test-positioning, or operating-model:align-rewards-and-incentives.