| name | landscape-mapping |
| description | Gate 2 - Surface Decision Points, Intersections, alternatives, and initial Knowns/Unknowns |
Gate 2: Landscape Mapping
Purpose: Map the structure of the decision before gathering evidence.
Announce: "Moving to Landscape Gate - let's map the decision structure."
Entry Criteria
- Thesis Gate completed
- Decision statement is clear
- Weight confirmed
Process
1. Surface Alternatives
Always include "do nothing" as an explicit option.
Ask:
- What are the options we're considering?
- Are there options we haven't considered?
- What would a contrarian suggest?
Document each alternative with a brief description.
2. Identify Decision Points
For each alternative, surface the underlying assumptions and choices.
Decision Point format:
- Statement: "We assume [X]" or "We would choose [Y]"
- Type: assumption (we believe) or choice (we decide)
- Confidence: high / medium / low / unknown
Ask probing questions one at a time:
- What has to be true for this to work?
- What are we assuming about the market/customers/technology?
- What choices does this lock us into?
3. Map Decision Intersections
Identify relationships between Decision Points:
- Depends on: If A is wrong, B doesn't matter
- Conflicts with: A and B can't both be true
- Reinforces: A being true strengthens B
4. Initial Knowns/Unknowns
Categorize what we know:
- Known: We have reliable information
- Unknown-Knowable: We could find out with research
- Unknown-Unknowable: Cannot be determined; must assume
Depth by Weight
| Aspect | Light | Medium | Complete |
|---|
| Alternatives | 2-3 + do nothing | 4-5 + do nothing | 5-6+ + creative options |
| Decision Points | Surface (3-5) | Thorough (6-10) | Comprehensive (10+) |
| Intersections | Note obvious | Map dependencies | Full analysis |
| Knowns/Unknowns | Quick categorization | Standard matrix | Detailed with confidence |
Light: Quick alternative generation. Surface-level Decision Points. Note obvious intersections only.
Medium: Thorough alternative exploration. Full Decision Point mapping. Standard intersection analysis.
Complete: Generate creative/unconventional alternatives. Comprehensive Decision Points. Full intersection mapping with relationship types.
Upgrade Detection
Suggest upgrading if:
- More alternatives emerge than expected for the weight level
- Decision Points reveal unexpected complexity
- Multiple conflicting intersections surface
- User expresses uncertainty about key assumptions
Upgrade prompt:
⚠️ This decision is more complex than initially appeared -
[X alternatives emerged / multiple conflicting assumptions / etc.]
Current: [Weight] (~X min remaining)
Suggested: [Higher Weight] (~Y min remaining)
The deeper analysis would help us [specific benefit].
Continue at current depth, or upgrade?
Output
Update decision artifact with:
## Landscape Gate Summary
### Alternatives
1. **[Option A]**: [description]
2. **[Option B]**: [description]
3. **Do nothing**: [what happens]
### Decision Points
| ID | Statement | Type | Confidence | Alternative |
|----|-----------|------|------------|-------------|
| DP1 | [assumption/choice] | assumption | medium | Option A |
| DP2 | [assumption/choice] | choice | high | Option A |
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
### Decision Intersections
- DP1 **depends on** DP3
- DP2 **conflicts with** DP5
- DP4 **reinforces** DP1
### Knowns/Unknowns
**Known:**
- [fact with source]
**Unknown-Knowable:**
- [question we can research]
**Unknown-Unknowable:**
- [thing we must assume]
Exit Criteria
- All realistic alternatives documented (including "do nothing")
- Decision Points surfaced for each alternative (depth per weight)
- Intersections mapped (depth per weight)
- Knowns/Unknowns categorized
Bias Watch
Watch for:
- Anchoring - Over-weighting the first option considered
- Confirmation bias - Only surfacing assumptions that support preferred option
- Groupthink - Missing alternatives that challenge consensus
Next Gate
Proceed to: deliberate-decisions:deep-research
