va

name	va
description	For any obvious strategy, ask what if we did the exact opposite. Counters the tendency to accept first-good-enough answers.
output	{"format":"prose"}

Variation Analysis

Input: $ARGUMENTS

---

Overview

For any obvious strategy, ask: "What if we did the exact opposite?" This counters the human tendency to accept first-good-enough answers. Often the "obviously wrong" approach reveals overlooked opportunities.

Steps

Step 1: State the Obvious Strategy

1. What is the current or proposed approach?
2. Why does it seem obviously right?
3. What assumptions make it obvious?
4. Who else is doing this? (If everyone is, that's a signal to question it)

Step 2: Generate Inversions

For each key element of the strategy, invert it:

Element	Current	Inverted	Why Inverted Might Work
Target audience	[who]	[opposite]
Pricing	[approach]	[opposite]
Timing	[when]	[opposite]
Channel	[how]	[opposite]
Scale	[size]	[opposite]
Speed	[pace]	[opposite]
Complexity	[level]	[opposite]
Control	[degree]	[opposite]

Inversion types:

• Direct opposite: Do the reverse (if adding features, subtract them)
• Audience inversion: Serve who you're ignoring
• Sequence inversion: Do last step first, first step last
• Value inversion: Charge for what's free, give away what's charged
• Scale inversion: Go much bigger or much smaller
• Speed inversion: Go much faster or much slower
• Effort inversion: Make it harder (not easier) for the user

Step 3: Evaluate Each Inversion

For each inversion, assess honestly:

1. Does it have ANY merit? (Not "is it better" — just "does it have a non-zero case?")
2. What would have to be true for this to work? (Conditions, not likelihood)
3. Has anyone done this? (Contrarian strategies that worked)
4. What does it reveal about assumptions in the original?

Score each:

• 0: Genuinely terrible, confirms original was right
• 1: Has a kernel of insight but wouldn't work
• 2: Could work in some contexts
• 3: Might actually be better than the original

Step 4: Extract Insights

Even inversions scoring 0-1 often reveal something:

1. Assumption exposure: What assumption did the inversion challenge?
2. Edge case discovery: Is there a niche where the inversion IS right?
3. Hybrid possibility: Can you combine elements of original and inversion?
4. Risk identification: Does the inversion reveal a risk in the original?

Step 5: Synthesize Variations

Beyond pure inversion, generate variations:

1. Original strategy: [as stated]
2. Pure inversion: [opposite]
3. Hybrid: [combines best of both]
4. Orthogonal: [neither original nor opposite — a different dimension entirely]
5. Extreme original: [same direction but 10x more]

Step 6: Report

VARIATION ANALYSIS:
Original strategy: [stated approach]
Core assumption: [what makes it "obvious"]

Key inversions:
| Element | Inverted | Score | Insight |
|---------|----------|-------|---------|
| [element] | [inversion] | [0-3] | [what it reveals] |

Best insights from inversions:
1. [insight] — from inverting [element]

Recommendations:
- Original strategy: [still best / needs modification / reconsider]
- Most promising variation: [which and why]
- Hidden assumption exposed: [what you now see differently]
- Suggested hybrid: [if applicable]

When to Use

• Strategy feels obvious or conventional
• Want to find contrarian advantages
• Competition is doing the same thing
• Need differentiation
• → INVOKE: /im (inversion method) for Munger-style inversion
• → INVOKE: /ai (assumption inversion) for systematic assumption challenging

Verification

• Original strategy clearly stated with assumptions
• Key elements inverted (not just one dimension)
• Each inversion honestly evaluated (not dismissed)
• Insights extracted even from rejected inversions
• Hybrid and orthogonal variations considered
• Hidden assumptions exposed