analyzing-contradictions

name	analyzing-contradictions
description	Detect gaps and contradictions across all prior phases; surface cross-phase tensions, unresolved assumptions, and sales/investor objections. Run after `developing-gtm-strategy` (Phase 4).
compatibility	Designed for Claude Code
metadata	{"stability":"development","allowed-tools":"Read, Write, Glob, Grep, WebSearch, WebFetch","argument-hint":["optional-focus-area"]}

Analyzing Contradictions (Phase 4)

Target: $ARGUMENTS

Phase 4 of the GTM pipeline. Depends on Phase 3. Reviews all prior phase outputs for internal contradictions, unresolved tensions, and gaps that could undermine the GTM strategy.

Mode Awareness

Read config/mode.md before starting:

• concise — Top 3 contradictions + top 5 objections (brief)
• detailed — Full contradiction register, root cause analysis, resolution roadmap
• conservative — Surface all contradictions regardless of severity; prefer resolution over ignoring
• ambitious — Frame contradictions as opportunities; propose bold resolutions

Inputs

• results/phase-0/capability-profile.md
• results/phase-1a/competitor-map.md
• results/phase-1b/market-analysis.md
• results/phase-2/pmf-assessment.md
• results/phase-3/gtm-strategy.md
• config/mode.md — Style and approach settings

Contradiction Detection Areas

• Phase 0 vs Phase 3: Does the GTM strategy require capabilities the product lacks?
• Phase 1A vs Phase 3: Does the channel strategy ignore how competitors already dominate those channels?
• Phase 1B vs Phase 2: Does the PMF score contradict market sizing assumptions?
• Phase 2 vs Phase 3: Does the segment prioritization conflict with PMF evidence?
• Internal Phase 3: Are ICP definitions consistent with channel strategy?

Workflow

1. Read all prior phase outputs systematically
2. Identify cross-phase tensions — Claims or recommendations that conflict
3. Identify intra-phase gaps — Missing evidence, unsupported assumptions
4. Draft objection list — What will skeptical investors or buyers say?
5. Propose resolutions — How should each contradiction be addressed?
6. Validate against criteria — Check config/validation_criteria.md Phase 4 gates

Output

Write to results/phase-4/:

contradiction-analysis.md

# Contradiction Analysis

## Cross-Phase Contradictions

### Contradiction 1: [Short description]
- Phases involved: [e.g. Phase 0 vs Phase 3]
- Tension: [What conflicts with what]
- Root cause: [Why this contradiction exists]
- Resolution: [Recommended fix or clarification needed]
- Priority: [High/Medium/Low]

## Assumption Gaps

| Assumption | Phase | Evidence | Gap |
|-----------|-------|----------|-----|
| [assumption] | [phase] | [present/missing] | [what's needed] |

## Objection Register

### Investor Objections
1. "[Objection]" — Response: [recommended response]

### Buyer Objections
1. "[Objection]" — Response: [recommended response]

## Summary
[Overall assessment: pipeline integrity score H/M/L, key blockers before Phase 5]

Rules

• Every contradiction must have a recommended resolution or explicit escalation
• Objections must be phrased as a skeptic would actually say them
• Do not suppress contradictions to protect the overall thesis — honesty here improves Phase 5