Strategy & competitive intelligence
Strategy work rarely has one obvious answer. A vague request such as “analyze our competitors” becomes a structured spec, then several analytical lenses you can actually compare.
There are several valid ways to look at a market. Outcomes can be judged against explicit criteria. The work repeats. Your assumptions, rejected hypotheses and trusted sources should not disappear into a slide deck.
Example runs
Market structure · customer perspective · competitor economics · disruptive scenario · specialist industry researcher
What “better” means
Evidence quality, insight depth, strategic novelty, commercial relevance, feasibility, risk awareness, executive usefulness
What the Library keeps
Competitor histories, winning research frameworks, trusted sources, strategic assumptions, rejected hypotheses, selected recommendations
Why one analysis is never enough
Placeholder. A short essay on comparing lenses instead of generating a single brief.
Keeping the hypotheses you rejected
Placeholder. Why failed frames are part of the asset.
From research dump to a decision
Placeholder. Rubrics that an executive can actually use.
You mention Chloe or an agent worker on the task, ask for a customer-first run after a market-structure run scored low on novelty, and keep the framework that survived review. Next quarter starts from that framework, not a blank prompt.
Treat runs as arguments to review, not as facts. High-stakes strategy still needs people who own the decision. Agent workers can gather and score; they should not silently replace judgment.
Start with one important task.
Try a better approach, review what changed, keep what worked.