analyze-constraints-readiness

Purpose

Assess feasibility and readiness by identifying constraints, resources, dependencies, bottlenecks, and maturation gates.

Input contract

mode_contracts:
  obstacle-triage: &readiness_input
    required: [candidate_or_plan, readiness_dimensions]
    optional: [resource_estimates, dependencies, assumptions, target_gates]
    constraints: [evidence_must_be_attached_to_each_scored_dimension]
  readiness-assessment: *readiness_input
  resource-envelope: *readiness_input
  causal-constraint-analysis: *readiness_input
  maturation-path: *readiness_input

Execution protocol

Do not perform called SOP operations inline; each loaded SOP owns its contract and thresholds.

1. Define candidate, dimensions, hard constraints, and target gates. You MUST load skill classify-constraint to classify each declared constraint.
2. Select obstacle-triage, readiness-assessment, resource-envelope, causal-constraint-analysis, or maturation-path.
3. You MUST load skill score-object to score the selected dimensions with evidence. You MUST load skill identify-bottleneck to identify binding constraints and dependencies.
4. You MUST load skill assess-removability to test whether binding constraints can be removed. You MUST load skill design-mitigation to design removal or mitigation paths and return a readiness conclusion. If several feasible responses must be balanced as a joint set, consider portfolio-optimization. If the target goal remains too broad to assess, consider decompose-research-goal. If external change dominates present readiness, consider analyze-future-scenarios. If several candidate paths are ready for comparative selection, rank-candidates may be the better next tactic.

Mode branches

• obstacle-triage: rapidly enumerate and severity-rank the obstacles that could block the target, preserving evidence status for each one. You MUST load skill identify-obstacles to enumerate the obstacles. You MUST load skill list-undesirable-effects to retain their observed consequences.
• readiness-assessment: score the required readiness dimensions with supporting evidence and identify the dimensions that keep the target from being ready. You MUST load skill assess-readiness-dimension to assess every required dimension.
• resource-envelope: estimate time, cost, and personnel bounds from analogies, then flag low-confidence estimates for investigation. You MUST load skill quantify-resource-gap to quantify the gap. You MUST load skill identify-critical-chain to expose the binding resource sequence.
• causal-constraint-analysis: trace how constraints interact through dependencies and conflicts to identify the binding cause rather than only its symptoms. You MUST load skill trace-causal-chain to trace constraint propagation. You MUST load skill extract-core-conflict to isolate the core conflict. You MUST load skill challenge-assumption to test the assumptions that sustain it.
• maturation-path: sequence stage gates and milestones that move the target from current readiness to the declared implementation threshold. You MUST load skill project-future-reality to project the proposed path. You MUST load skill apply-stage-gate to apply its stage gates.

Output contract

mode_contracts:
  obstacle-triage: &constraint_output
    produces: [constraint_register, bottlenecks, mitigation_paths]
    delta_fields: [findings, decisions, uncertainties, open_questions, recommended_jumps]
  readiness-assessment:
    produces: [readiness_profile, bottlenecks]
    delta_fields: [findings, decisions, uncertainties, open_questions, recommended_jumps]
  resource-envelope:
    produces: [resource_envelope, bottlenecks, mitigation_paths]
    delta_fields: [findings, decisions, uncertainties, open_questions, recommended_jumps]
  causal-constraint-analysis: *constraint_output
  maturation-path:
    produces: [readiness_profile, resource_envelope, stage_gates, mitigation_paths]
    delta_fields: [findings, decisions, uncertainties, open_questions, recommended_jumps]

Thresholds and quality gates

• Feasibility, maturity, constraint, resource, and maturation gates use declared dimension/evidence/constraint coverage ratios; record numerator, denominator, batch increment, stopping reason, and source references.

• Preserve structural requirements: at least one hard constraint, one removal path per removable constraint, explicit stage gates, and a binding-constraint rule relative to the observed score distribution.

• Feasibility dimensions >=5; blockers >=3 per candidate where source protocol applies.

• Maturity diagnosis: >=5 dimensions, >=2 evidence items per dimension, >=1 bottleneck.

• Constraint identification: >=3 constraints per candidate; >=1 hard constraint; >=1 removal path per removable constraint.

• Resource envelope: >=3 dimensions (time, cost, personnel) and >=2 analogies per estimate.

• Maturation path: >=3 stage gates and >=2 milestones per stage.

• Binding constraint threshold: sensitivity score >2* median.

Failure and counterexamples

Do not label a candidate ready with missing evidence, unclassified hard constraints, or an unbounded resource estimate. A conflict with no manageable injection remains blocked.

Provenance map

26 architecture old entries; readiness, feasibility, resource, obstacle, dependency, sensitivity, and maturation families are merged by mode. Missing aliases are listed in log.

Legacy context checkpoint / Delta notes

Append dimension scores/evidence, constraint IDs, bottleneck rationale, resources, gates, and unresolved conflicts.

Preserved source criteria ledger

source	source line	kind	source criterion
feasibility-assessment	42	numeric-table	\
feasibility-assessment	75	numeric	\
feasibility-assessment	76	numeric	\
feasibility-assessment	77	numeric	\
feasibility-assessment	78	numeric	\
maturity-diagnosis	23	numeric	\
maturity-diagnosis	24	numeric	\
maturity-diagnosis	25	numeric	\
maturity-diagnosis	53	textual	1. Identify relevant dimensions for the candidate (minimum: technical, market, regulatory, resource, organizational)
maturity-diagnosis	64	numeric	overall_readiness: <1-9 TRL scale>
constraint-identification	23	numeric	\
constraint-identification	24	numeric	\
constraint-identification	25	numeric	\
constraint-identification	58	numeric	4. For constraints with removability score > 0.3, design removal-path
resource-envelope-estimation	24	numeric	\
resource-envelope-estimation	25	numeric	\
resource-envelope-estimation	26	numeric	\
resource-envelope-estimation	58	numeric	3. Identify >= 2 analogous projects and extract their actual resource consumption
resource-envelope-estimation	61	numeric	6. Flag any estimates with confidence < 0.5 for further investigation
comparative-feasibility-ranking	16	textual	Purpose: Produce a defensible ranking of candidates by feasibility. Uses multi-dimensional radar charts to visualize relative strengths and a weighted feasibility index to collapse multiple dimensions into a single comparable score.
comparative-feasibility-ranking	27	numeric	\
comparative-feasibility-ranking	28	numeric	\
comparative-feasibility-ranking	29	numeric-table	\
comparative-feasibility-ranking	58	numeric	2. Normalize scores to a common scale (1-9 recommended)
maturation-pathway-design	27	numeric	\
maturation-pathway-design	28	numeric	\
maturation-pathway-design	29	numeric-table	\
maturation-pathway-design	37	textual	\
maturation-pathway-design	62	textual	2. Define target readiness required for implementation
maturation-pathway-design	76	textual	target_readiness:
multi-dimensional-readiness-scan	23	textual	3. Bottleneck Identification - Analyze the radar for dimensions significantly below the mean or below required thresholds. Deploy bottleneck-identification SOP on the radar data.
multi-dimensional-readiness-scan	29	numeric-table	\
multi-dimensional-readiness-scan	30	numeric-table	\
multi-dimensional-readiness-scan	31	numeric-table	\
multi-dimensional-readiness-scan	39	numeric	- Each dimension should have at least 2 evidence items supporting the score
multi-dimensional-readiness-scan	41	textual	## Minimum Yield
multi-dimensional-readiness-scan	43	numeric	- Complete radar with >= 5 dimensions scored
constraint-drilling	26	numeric	4. Removal Path Design - For constraints with removability > 0.3, design concrete steps to remove or mitigate them. Deploy removal-path SOP for each removable constraint.
constraint-drilling	32	numeric-table	\
constraint-drilling	33	numeric-table	\
constraint-drilling	34	numeric-table	\
constraint-drilling	35	numeric-table	\
constraint-drilling	42	numeric	- Stage 4 only runs for constraints with removability score > 0.3
constraint-drilling	45	textual	## Minimum Yield
constraint-drilling	47	numeric	- Classified constraint list with >= 3 constraints identified
constraint-drilling	49	numeric	- Removal paths for all constraints scoring removability > 0.3
staged-gate-evaluation	19	textual	1. Gate Criteria Definition - Define what must be true for a candidate to pass each gate. Deploy gate-criteria-definition SOP for each stage gate.
staged-gate-evaluation	29	numeric-table	\
staged-gate-evaluation	30	numeric-table	\
staged-gate-evaluation	31	numeric-table	\
staged-gate-evaluation	35	numeric	- Stage 1 should define >= 3 gates (e.g., concept feasibility, technical feasibility, implementation readiness)
staged-gate-evaluation	42	textual	## Minimum Yield
constraint-analysis	44	textual	## HARD-GATE
constraint-analysis	46	textual	Before entering this campaign, the following must be true:
constraint-analysis	78	textual	## Budget Gate
constraint-analysis	94	textual	## Minimum Yield
constraint-analysis	97	numeric	- At least 1 binding constraint identified and characterized
constraint-analysis	100	numeric	- No unresolved conflicts between top-3 constraints
resource-constraint	63	textual	## Budget Gate
assumption-constraint	55	numeric	- Top-5 fragile assumptions with validation paths
assumption-constraint	58	textual	## Budget Gate
dependency-constraint	60	textual	## Budget Gate
conflict-resolution	66	textual	## Budget Gate
constraint-tree-building	25	textual	- Minimum 5 UDEs for a meaningful tree
constraint-tree-building	42	numeric	- When to escalate: If >10 UDEs found, prioritize top-5 by severity before tracing
constraint-tree-building	43	textual	- Quality gate: Every causal link must have a BECAUSE clause (the underlying assumption)
sensitivity-ranking	25	textual	- Express gaps in comparable units where possible
sensitivity-ranking	43	numeric	- When to skip: If only 1-2 constraints exist, ranking is trivial
sensitivity-ranking	44	numeric	- Threshold: Constraints with sensitivity score >2* the median are "binding"
constraint-breaking	26	textual	- If constraint is not a dilemma, reframe: "We need X" vs "We cannot have X because Y"
constraint-breaking	29	numeric	- Input: all assumptions from the EC (typically 8-15 assumptions across 4 arrows)
constraint-breaking	35	textual	- Injection must be: specific, actionable, within our control, and testable
constraint-breaking	36	numeric	- Generate 2-3 candidate injections
constraint-breaking	43	textual	- What conditions (prerequisites) must hold?

Context checkpoint / Delta notes

Append dimension scores/evidence, constraint IDs, bottleneck rationale, resources, gates, and unresolved conflicts. | constraint-breaking | 54 | numeric | - Success criterion: At least one injection that resolves the conflict with <=2 manageable side effects |