feat(deep-research): V6.1 source accessibility policy and Counter-Review Team
- Correct source accessibility: distinguish circular verification (forbidden) from exclusive information advantage (encouraged) - Add Counter-Review Team with 5 specialized agents (claim-validator, source-diversity-checker, recency-validator, contradiction-finder, counter-review-coordinator) - Add Enterprise Research Mode: 6-dimension data collection framework with SWOT, competitive barrier, and risk matrix analysis - Update version to 2.4.0 - Add comprehensive reference docs: - source_accessibility_policy.md - V6_1_improvements.md - counter_review_team_guide.md - enterprise_analysis_frameworks.md - enterprise_quality_checklist.md - enterprise_research_methodology.md - quality_gates.md - report_template_v6.md - research_notes_format.md - subagent_prompt.md Based on "深度推理" case study methodology lessons learned. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
daymade
135
deep-research/references/enterprise_analysis_frameworks.md
Normal file
135
deep-research/references/enterprise_analysis_frameworks.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,135 @@
|
||||
# Enterprise Analysis Frameworks
|
||||
|
||||
Apply these frameworks after completing the six-dimension data collection. Execute in order: SWOT → Competitive Barriers → Risk Matrix → Comprehensive Scoring.
|
||||
|
||||
## SWOT Analysis Template
|
||||
|
||||
Each SWOT entry MUST include evidence and source attribution.
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
| | Positive Factors | Negative Factors |
|
||||
|--------------|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
|
||||
| **Internal** | **S (Strengths)** | **W (Weaknesses)** |
|
||||
| | 1. {description} | 1. {description} |
|
||||
| | • Evidence: {data/fact} | • Evidence: {data/fact} |
|
||||
| | • Source: {citation} | • Source: {citation} |
|
||||
| | • Impact: {assessment} | • Impact: {assessment} |
|
||||
| | | |
|
||||
| **External** | **O (Opportunities)** | **T (Threats)** |
|
||||
| | 1. {description} | 1. {description} |
|
||||
| | • Evidence: {trend/policy} | • Evidence: {pressure/risk} |
|
||||
| | • Source: {citation} | • Source: {citation} |
|
||||
| | • Probability: {assessment} | • Probability: {assessment} |
|
||||
| | • Impact: {assessment} | • Impact: {assessment} |
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Requirements**:
|
||||
- Each quadrant: 3-5 entries minimum
|
||||
- Every entry must have evidence with source
|
||||
- S/W must be data-backed (not opinions)
|
||||
- O/T must include probability and impact estimates
|
||||
|
||||
**Strategic Implications Matrix** (generate after SWOT):
|
||||
- **SO Strategy** (leverage strengths to capture opportunities): 1-2 specific recommendations
|
||||
- **WO Strategy** (overcome weaknesses to seize opportunities): 1-2 specific recommendations
|
||||
- **ST Strategy** (use strengths to counter threats): 1-2 specific recommendations
|
||||
- **WT Strategy** (mitigate weaknesses to avoid threats): 1-2 specific recommendations
|
||||
|
||||
## Competitive Barrier Quantification Framework
|
||||
|
||||
7 barrier dimensions with weighted scoring:
|
||||
|
||||
| Dimension | Weight | Strong | Moderate | Weak |
|
||||
|-----------|--------|--------|----------|------|
|
||||
| **Network Effects** | 20% | 4.5 — Clear network effects (social platforms, marketplaces) | 3.0 — Exists but replaceable | 1.5 — Minimal network effects |
|
||||
| **Scale Economies** | 15% | 4.0 — Unit cost drops 30%+ with scale | 2.5 — Cost drops 10-30% | 1.0 — Cost drops <10% |
|
||||
| **Brand Value** | 15% | 4.0 — Category leader, high pricing power | 2.5 — Known brand, competitive | 1.0 — Commodity brand, price-sensitive |
|
||||
| **Technology/Patents** | 15% | 4.0 — Core patents, hard to circumvent | 2.5 — Some patent protection | 1.0 — Peripheral patents only |
|
||||
| **Switching Costs** | 15% | 4.0 — High lock-in (data, ecosystem) | 2.5 — Moderate switching friction | 1.0 — Low switching cost |
|
||||
| **Regulatory Licenses** | 10% | 3.5 — Heavy regulation, hard to obtain | 2.0 — Standard regulatory requirements | 0.5 — Light regulation |
|
||||
| **Data Assets** | 10% | 3.5 — Massive proprietary high-quality data | 2.0 — Some data accumulation | 0.5 — Limited or public data |
|
||||
|
||||
**Scoring**: Total = Σ(dimension score × weight)
|
||||
|
||||
**Rating Scale**:
|
||||
| Score | Rating | Interpretation |
|
||||
|-------|--------|---------------|
|
||||
| ≥3.5 | A+ | Exceptional moat |
|
||||
| ≥2.8 | A | Strong moat |
|
||||
| ≥2.0 | B+ | Good moat |
|
||||
| ≥1.5 | B | Moderate moat |
|
||||
| ≥1.0 | C+ | Limited moat |
|
||||
| <1.0 | C | Weak moat |
|
||||
|
||||
**Output format**: Present a scorecard table with each dimension's strength rating, raw score, justification (with evidence), and the weighted total with final rating.
|
||||
|
||||
## Risk Matrix Framework
|
||||
|
||||
Assess 8 mandatory risk categories:
|
||||
|
||||
### Risk Assessment Scales
|
||||
|
||||
**Probability**:
|
||||
| Level | Range | Score |
|
||||
|-------|-------|-------|
|
||||
| High | >70% | 0.7-1.0 |
|
||||
| Medium | 30-70% | 0.3-0.7 |
|
||||
| Low | <30% | 0.0-0.3 |
|
||||
|
||||
**Impact**:
|
||||
| Level | Description | Score |
|
||||
|-------|-------------|-------|
|
||||
| High | >30% revenue impact | 3 |
|
||||
| Medium | 10-30% revenue impact | 2 |
|
||||
| Low | <10% revenue impact | 1 |
|
||||
|
||||
**Risk Level**: Risk Value = Probability Score × Impact Score
|
||||
| Color | Level | Threshold |
|
||||
|-------|-------|-----------|
|
||||
| Red | High risk | ≥2.5 |
|
||||
| Yellow | Medium risk | 1.0 – 2.5 |
|
||||
| Green | Low risk | <1.0 |
|
||||
|
||||
### 8 Mandatory Risk Categories
|
||||
|
||||
| # | Category | Typical Triggers |
|
||||
|---|----------|-----------------|
|
||||
| 1 | Market risk | Industry slowdown, demand shifts |
|
||||
| 2 | Competitive risk | New entrants, incumbents pivoting |
|
||||
| 3 | Technology risk | Tech obsolescence, disruption |
|
||||
| 4 | Regulatory risk | Policy tightening, compliance cost |
|
||||
| 5 | Financial risk | Cash flow stress, debt levels |
|
||||
| 6 | Operational risk | Key talent loss, supply chain |
|
||||
| 7 | Talent risk | Brain drain, recruiting difficulty |
|
||||
| 8 | Geopolitical risk | Trade friction, data localization |
|
||||
|
||||
### Risk Table Format
|
||||
|
||||
| Category | Specific Risk | Probability | Impact | Risk Value | Level | Evidence/Triggers | Current Mitigations | Recommended Actions |
|
||||
|----------|--------------|-------------|--------|------------|-------|-------------------|--------------------|--------------------|
|
||||
|
||||
**Requirements**:
|
||||
- All 8 categories must be assessed (no skipping)
|
||||
- Each risk entry must cite specific evidence or triggers
|
||||
- Provide current mitigations AND recommended actions
|
||||
- High risks: require immediate action plans
|
||||
- Medium risks: require monitoring plans
|
||||
- Low risks: require periodic review schedule
|
||||
|
||||
## Comprehensive Scoring (Final Section)
|
||||
|
||||
After completing SWOT, barriers, and risk matrix, generate a comprehensive scorecard:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
| Dimension | Score | Weight | Weighted | Key Evidence |
|
||||
|-----------|-------|--------|----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Business Quality | X/10 | 25% | | |
|
||||
| Competitive Position | X/10 | 20% | | |
|
||||
| Financial Health | X/10 | 20% | | |
|
||||
| Growth Potential | X/10 | 15% | | |
|
||||
| Risk Profile | X/10 | 10% | | |
|
||||
| Management Quality | X/10 | 10% | | |
|
||||
| **Total** | | 100% | **X/10** | |
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Every score must reference specific evidence from the six-dimension data collection.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user