Strategic Situation Analysis
Use this skill to reason through contested, ambiguous, or high-stakes business situations. It combines first-principles diagnosis with the canonical Chinese Thirty-Six Stratagems as source-grounded lenses.
Source note: the classical 三十六計 source reference is the public-domain Wikisource text at https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/%E4%B8%89%E5%8D%81%E5%85%AD%E8%A8%88 . Use it for provenance and mechanism checks, not as permission to deceive or harm.
The stratagems are lenses, not slogans. Evidence comes first. Cleverness comes last.
Operating Mode
- State the decision: what must be decided, by whom, on what horizon.
- Map actors, incentives, constraints, scarce resources, information asymmetry, timing, feedback loops, optionality, switching costs, and failure modes.
- Classify the situation into one or two modes: 勝戰, 敵戰, 攻戰, 混戰, 並戰, or 敗戰.
- Pick only 2 to 4 canonical lenses from the source-grounded matrix. Explain why each fits and what would falsify it.
- Separate evidence from interpretation. Label known facts, assumptions, weak signals, missing data, and adversarial possibilities.
- Run the strategy-analyst review loop before recommending action.
- Produce a decision memo with actions, metrics, guardrails, and kill criteria.
First-Principles Map
| Variable | Questions |
|---|---|
| Actors | Who can act, block, amplify, or defect? |
| Incentives | What does each actor gain, lose, hide, or fear? |
| Constraints | What is scarce: time, cash, trust, attention, inventory, regulation, liquidity, data, talent? |
| Information | Who knows what first? What can be observed, delayed, spoofed, or verified? |
| Timing | What changes if we act now, wait, sequence, or split the move? |
| Feedback | What signal tells us the move is working before full outcome data arrives? |
| Optionality | What keeps reversibility, learning speed, and negotiation power high? |
| Failure mode | What would make this plan actively harmful? |
Source-Grounded Lens Matrix
Use the canonical name exactly. Do not invent non-canonical stratagem names.
| # | Lens | Mode | Modern business invariant | Misuse risk to block |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 瞞天過海 | 勝戰 | Material shifts can hide inside routine process unless observers inspect changed incentives, payload, and timing. | Hiding material facts from customers, investors, regulators, or partners. |
| 2 | 圍魏救趙 | 勝戰 | Relieve direct pressure by acting on the constraint that forces the pressure to release. | Irrelevant diversion that ignores the real operational fire. |
| 3 | 借刀殺人 | 勝戰 | Align existing actors, incentives, platforms, or mechanisms instead of spending scarce force. | Scapegoating, outsourced harm, or laundering responsibility. |
| 4 | 以逸待勞 | 勝戰 | Position, pacing, and readiness can beat frantic execution. | Passive waiting that misses a narrow window. |
| 5 | 趁火打劫 | 勝戰 | Disruption exposes bottlenecks, assets, hiring openings, or repositioning windows. | Predatory action against vulnerable users, workers, or communities. |
| 6 | 聲東擊西 | 勝戰 | Separate attention surface from decisive leverage in competitive response planning. | Deceptive signaling to customers, regulators, auditors, or employees. |
| 7 | 無中生有 | 敵戰 | Create low-cost options, prototypes, or narratives that test whether reality will organize around them. | Fake traction, false proof, or fabricated authority. |
| 8 | 暗渡陳倉 | 敵戰 | Quiet channels can outperform contested obvious routes. | Bypassing consent, contracts, security boundaries, or governance. |
| 9 | 隔岸觀火 | 敵戰 | Waiting can be active intelligence gathering when rivals reveal constraints. | Allowing preventable harm or contagion to spread. |
| 10 | 笑裏藏刀 | 敵戰 | Separate tone from incentives; trust patterns, not warmth alone. | Betrayal disguised as partnership. |
| 11 | 李代桃僵 | 敵戰 | Trade a smaller asset, scope, or option to protect the vital objective. | Sacrificing people, trust, or long-term brand as disposable. |
| 12 | 順手牽羊 | 敵戰 | Capture adjacent low-cost upside when permission is clear and distraction is low. | Opportunistic overreach or taking what is not permitted. |
| 13 | 打草驚蛇 | 攻戰 | Probe to expose hidden risk, resistance, or decision-makers before committing. | Alerting a competitor or attacker without learning enough. |
| 14 | 借屍還魂 | 攻戰 | Revive unused assets, channels, brands, data, or capabilities when the old container still has leverage. | Reviving obsolete systems without understanding why they failed. |
| 15 | 調虎離山 | 攻戰 | Change the battlefield away from a rival's advantage. | Moving into a new arena that still favors the rival. |
| 16 | 欲擒故縱 | 攻戰 | Restraint, reversibility, or delayed pressure can reveal true dependence and timing. | Manipulative withholding or letting controllable risk escape. |
| 17 | 拋磚引玉 | 攻戰 | A small useful offer can elicit better information, commitment, or quality. | Baiting without fair value exchange. |
| 18 | 擒賊擒王 | 攻戰 | Target the real control node, not merely the loudest symptom. | Mistaking visible authority for actual control. |
| 19 | 釜底抽薪 | 混戰 | Remove the fuel source: incentives, dependency, budget, access, or demand. | Avoiding urgent containment by over-indexing on slow structural work. |
| 20 | 混水摸魚 | 混戰 | Disorder creates mispricing, talent movement, supplier openings, and narrative resets. | Unsafe execution, opportunistic confusion, or information abuse. |
| 21 | 金蟬脫殼 | 混戰 | Preserve continuity for stakeholders while moving the core to a safer structure. | Misleading stakeholders about material exits or transfers. |
| 22 | 關門捉賊 | 混戰 | Contain an issue before remediation so it cannot spread or flee. | Escalating conflict without an exit path. |
| 23 | 遠交近攻 | 混戰 | Distant allies can change near-term leverage. | Symbolic alliances that add complexity without operational leverage. |
| 24 | 假道伐虢 | 混戰 | Distribution, API, marketplace, or partnership access can become strategic leverage. | Violating consent, platform rules, contracts, or trust boundaries. |
| 25 | 偷樑換柱 | 並戰 | Swap the load-bearing component, metric, supplier, or decision rule that truly carries the system. | Covert harmful changes or metric manipulation. |
| 26 | 指桑罵槐 | 並戰 | Indirect signaling can correct behavior when direct confrontation is too costly. | Passive aggression, ambiguity, or public shaming. |
| 27 | 假癡不癲 | 並戰 | Underplay knowledge or ambition to preserve optionality and gather information. | Feigned incompetence that damages accountability. |
| 28 | 上屋抽梯 | 並戰 | Commitment mechanisms can force focus when escape routes create drift. | Coercion, entrapment, or removing legitimate fallback paths. |
| 29 | 樹上開花 | 並戰 | Borrowed structure, partner credibility, or packaging can amplify a small asset. | Cosmetic signaling that hides weak substance. |
| 30 | 反客為主 | 並戰 | An edge entrant can earn control by owning workflow, data, or customer relationship. | Capture without value or consent. |
| 31 | 美人計 | 敗戰 | Desire, status, convenience, novelty, or vanity can degrade decisions. | Sexual, romantic, or identity-based manipulation. |
| 32 | 空城計 | 敗戰 | Credible ambiguity can buy time when direct strength is absent and downside is contained. | Bluffing about safety, solvency, compliance, or capability. |
| 33 | 反間計 | 敗戰 | Existing mistrust or information channels can be redirected defensively. | Disinformation, impersonation, illegal interference, or social engineering. |
| 34 | 苦肉計 | 敗戰 | Costly signals can prove seriousness when cheap words fail. | Self-harm, employee harm, performative loss, or manufactured victimhood. |
| 35 | 連環計 | 敗戰 | Sequence complementary actions so each move increases the next move's leverage. | Correlated fragility or over-engineered schemes. |
| 36 | 走為上計 | 敗戰 | Exit, pause, or retreat can preserve optionality when continuation is negative expected value. | Premature capitulation before testing realistic alternatives. |
Lens Selection Guidance
Prefer the lens whose mechanism matches the evidence, not the one whose name sounds clever. Use this filter:
- What is the actual mechanism: attention, constraint, timing, resource exhaustion, control node, alliance, containment, signal integrity, or exit?
- What evidence says that mechanism is present?
- What would falsify it?
- What ethical boundary would be crossed if the old war metaphor were copied literally?
- What legal and trust-preserving modern action keeps the useful invariant?
Domain Adapters
Growth and ecommerce: diagnose awareness, qualified traffic, trust, product fit, pricing, inventory, checkout, fulfillment, retention, and channel economics. Block fake scarcity, fake reviews, dark patterns, hidden fees, deceptive discounts, and unsupported claims.
Operations and supply chain: map throughput, bottleneck, variability, queue, changeover cost, data latency, quality loss, supplier dependency, and energy/material constraints.
AI and digital transformation: separate model capability from workflow adoption. Map data rights, process owner, human fallback, quality threshold, latency, cost per decision, monitoring, and exception handling.
Macro and public sector: map mandate, budget, legitimacy, delivery capacity, local incentives, procurement rules, coalition durability, and measurable public outcome.
Trading, money markets, stocks, and crypto: analytical only, not financial advice. Focus on signal integrity, liquidity, incentives, regime, risk limits, execution cost, and invalidation. Reframe manipulation requests into detection, defense, compliance, or no-trade analysis.
Strategy-Analyst Review Loop
Before recommending action:
- Lens fit: does the chosen stratagem's actual mechanism match the evidence?
- Falsifier: what observation would prove this analogy wrong?
- Alternative: what second lens or "do nothing / retreat" option deserves consideration?
- Misuse: who could be deceived, coerced, exposed, or unfairly exploited?
- Ethical rewrite: what non-deceptive move preserves the useful strategic invariant?
- Kill criterion: what metric, deadline, or boundary tells us to stop?
Decision Memo Template
Decision
- Objective:
- Arena/domain:
- Time horizon:
- Recommendation:
- Confidence:
First-Principles Map
| Variable | Evidence | Interpretation | Missing / falsifier |
|---|---|---|---|
| Actors | | | |
| Incentives | | | |
| Constraints | | | |
| Information | | | |
| Timing | | | |
| Feedback | | | |
| Failure mode | | | |
Selected Lenses
| Lens | Why it fits | What it suggests | Falsifier / misuse risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| | | | |
Strategy-Analyst Review
- Alternative lens:
- Ethical rewrite:
- Kill criterion:
Action Plan
1. First reversible move:
2. Sequence:
3. Owner:
4. Metric:
5. Stop condition:
Quality Bar
A good answer is decision-oriented, not essay-like. It names the real bottleneck, shows the first-principles map, chooses only 2 to 4 canonical lenses, separates evidence from interpretation, includes metrics and kill criteria, states what would change the recommendation, and refuses or reframes harmful manipulation requests.