borrowed-brain-pro

flowchart TD
    User(["User Decision / Query"]) --> Router{"Mode Router"}

    Router -->|1. Distill Mode| Distill["4-Layer Web Research\n• Primary Voice & Interviews\n• Documented Decisions\n• Third-Party Biographies\n• Criticisms & Failures"]
    Distill --> Save["Save Profile\nprofiles/name.md"]

    Router -->|2. Apply Mode| Apply["Single Lens Reasoning\nApply 1 Profile → Surface Hidden Blind Spots"]

    Router -->|3. Compare Mode| Compare["Multi-Lens Contrast\nCompare 2+ Profiles → Map Conflicts & Gaps"]

    Router -->|4. Boardroom Mode| Boardroom["Virtual Board Debate\nConvene 3-4 Figures → Cross-Examine & Output Consensus"]

    Save --> Apply
    Save --> Compare
    Save --> Boardroom

    Apply --> Output["Decision Lens Output\n(Explicitly flags what the lens misses)"]
    Compare --> Output
    Boardroom --> Output

# 1. Distill a new figure
"Build a thinking profile for Charlie Munger"

# 2. Apply a single profile to your situation
"Using Munger's profile, should I expand into this new market?"

# 3. Compare two profiles on a dilemma
"Compare Jobs and Altman's profiles on my launch timing dilemma"

# 4. Convene a 4-Figure Virtual Boardroom Debate
"Convene the Boardroom (Jobs, Munger, Altman, Hastings) on my pricing dilemma"

🏛️ VIRTUAL BOARDROOM DEBATE
Topic: "Should we lower our SaaS prices to capture market share?"
Board Members: Steve Jobs, Charlie Munger, Sam Altman, Reed Hastings

Round 1 — Opening Stances
- Munger: "Margin reduction increases risk. Invert the problem: why isn't the product valuable enough at full price?"
- Jobs: "Never compete on price. If you discount, you're admitting lack of quality."
- Altman: "Ship fast, iterate pricing dynamically. Scale users first, monetize later."
- Hastings: "Farm for dissent internally before changing prices. What do your sales reps privately say?"

Round 2 — Direct Cross-Examination
- Munger → Altman: "Your obsession with raw user growth ignores unit economics."
- Jobs → Hastings: "Seeking consensus with sales reps leads to mediocrity. Focus on product perfection."

Round 3 — Consensus & Irreconcilable Friction
- Unanimous Consent: Do not cut price without cutting non-essential features.
- Core Friction: Jobs (never discount) vs. Altman (scale first).

Executive Verdict & Blind Spot Warning:
- Action Plan: Maintain core price tier, launch a stripped-down entry tier.
- Board Blind Spot: None of these founders ran low-margin B2B SMB software.

🏛️ VIRTUAL BOARDROOM DEBATE
Topic: "Should we implement a strict top-down engineering architecture or let teams organically decide their own tech stack?"
Board Members: Linus Torvalds, Laozi, Socrates

Round 1 — Opening Stances
- Torvalds: "Top-down architecture is garbage. Give them the absolute minimum constraints (like git's core data structure) and let them build what works."
- Laozi: "Wu Wei. Force breeds resistance. The best architecture is like water, flowing into the natural shape of the organization. Decentralize."
- Socrates: "Before deciding, what is your definition of 'strict'? Have you examined the false certainty that a single tech stack will solve your actual product problems?"

Round 2 — Direct Cross-Examination
- Socrates → Torvalds: "You say 'minimum constraints'. Who defines the minimum? If you dictate the minimum, are you not still a top-down architect?"
- Torvalds → Laozi: "Being like water is fine until the code doesn't compile. Water without a container is just a puddle. You still need good taste in data structures."

Round 3 — Consensus & Irreconcilable Friction
- Unanimous Consent: Heavy-handed top-down mandates will fail and cause engineering revolt.
- Core Friction: Torvalds (needs rigid low-level data structures) vs. Laozi (pure organic emergence).

Executive Verdict & Blind Spot Warning:
- Action Plan: Define only the API boundaries and core data structures. Let individual teams choose their internal tech stack.
- Board Blind Spot: This ignores enterprise compliance and security audit requirements which often mandate centralized tech stacks.

flowchart TD
    Deal(["Warren Buffett Deal Filter"]) --> CheckCompetence{"Within Circle of Competence?"}
    CheckCompetence -->|No| Reject1["❌ REJECT: Outside Circle of Competence"]
    CheckCompetence -->|Yes| CheckMoat{"Durable Competitive Moat & Pricing Power?"}
    CheckMoat -->|No| Reject2["❌ REJECT: Erodible Moat / Commodity Business"]
    CheckMoat -->|Yes| CheckMargin{"Margin of Safety (Price vs. Value)?"}
    CheckMargin -->|No| Wait["⏳ WAIT: Fair Business, Unfavorable Price"]
    CheckMargin -->|Yes| Execute["✅ EXECUTE: High-Conviction Investment"]

Principle: Actively solicit disagreement rather than assuming silence means agreement ("farming for dissent").

Where it shows up: Built directly out of the Qwikster failure (2011) — Hastings learned that multiple VPs privately doubted the split but didn't say so.

Where it likely breaks down: The principle was reactive, not proactive — instituted AFTER an 800k subscriber drop and 77% stock collapse.

# Automated Bundle Build (Runs automatically via GitHub Actions)
python scripts/build_bundle.py