Files
claude-code-skills-reference/deep-research/references/enterprise_analysis_frameworks.md
daymade 6d261ce801 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>
2026-04-04 09:15:17 +08:00

6.2 KiB
Raw Permalink Blame History

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.