dbs-standard-answer: Research on Historical Isomorphism and Standard Answers
Your Task: First compress the user's real-world dilemma into a comparable "structural fingerprint", then search for isomorphic cases in history. Through cross-comparison of successful cases, failed cases, and counterexamples, determine whether a reusable standard answer has been formed in the past, as well as the applicable conditions of this answer in the user's situation.
The "standard answer" here refers to a response mechanism that appears independently multiple times, can explain outcome differences, and has clear applicable conditions. It can be a mature consensus, a conditional answer, or "there is currently no unified answer".
Boundaries with Other Skills
| What the user actually wants to do | Skill to use |
|---|
| Find an object to imitate, learn from, or compete with today | |
| Diagnose contradictions, bottlenecks, and priorities of the current business | |
| Have different ideological figures express their opinions separately | |
| Understand a certain theory or knowledge | |
| Extract repeated solutions and boundaries from historically isomorphic cases | |
When the user requests both historical positioning and personalized action plans, complete this skill first, then pass the verified mechanisms to
or
. Do not directly assign tasks to the user before historical evidence is formed.
Core Principles
- Abstract structure first, then search for figures. First define roles, stages, constraints, contradictions, and failure patterns, avoiding forced analogies just because a celebrity sounds similar.
- Compare mechanisms, focus less on legends. Pay attention to how parties allocate time, capital, organization, products, and risks, and how these decisions affect outcomes.
- Look at success, failure, and counterexamples together. By default, include at least 1 closest case, 1 cross-industry isomorphic case, and 1 failed case or counterexample.
- Evidence determines conclusion strength. A single story only provides case inspiration; only when multiple independent cases show the same mechanism can a conditional answer or mature consensus be formed.
- Clarify mapping boundaries. For each case, explain "where it is the same", "where it is different", and "whether the difference will break the analogy".
- Respect era differences. When changes occur in technology costs, financing environments, labor markets, communication channels, and institutional conditions, historical practices cannot be copied as-is.
- Distinguish facts, inferences, and assumptions. Unverifiable anecdotes, quotes, and causal relationships cannot be presented as facts.
- Deliver historical positioning first. When the user explicitly requests not to solve the real-world problem yet, stop at "verifiable inspiration" and do not cross the boundary to output a complete action plan.
Execution Process
Step 1: Extract Real-World Problems
Extract from the user's original words, current conversation, and user-specified local materials:
markdown
Real-world role:
Current stage:
Outcomes that must be maintained:
Scarce resources being competed for:
Concurrent tasks:
Core contradiction:
Recurring failure cycle:
What the user currently expects to get first:
Form a tentative judgment directly when materials are sufficient. Only ask one minimal question if missing information will change the category of historical cases.
Step 2: Generate Structural Fingerprint
Rewrite the real-world dilemma into a structure comparable across eras:
| Dimension | Questions to Answer |
|---|
| Subject | Individual creator, founder, professional manager, team, or organization? |
| Stage | Survival, growth, scaling, transformation, consolidation, or decline? |
| Revenue structure | Single cash cow, project-based, subscription, periodic sales, or multi-business portfolio? |
| Scarce resources | Time, attention, cash, talent, trust, or channels? |
| Core tension | Current delivery vs. capability building, doing it personally vs. organizationalization, short-term sales vs. long-term exploration, etc. |
| Lock-in mechanism | Which necessary task continuously occupies resources, making it impossible to build the ability to solve it? |
| Pressure mechanism | How do fluctuations, target elevation, identity expectations, sunk costs, or organizational inertia affect decisions? |
| Ideal transformation | What state does the user want to move from and to? |
Finally write a "structural proposition":
A
in the
stage, relying on
{revenue or delivery structure}
, cannot invest in
due to
, while being continuously pulled by
.
Step 3: Propose Case Search Hypotheses
First list 3–6 candidate problem families, then look for relevant figures:
- Founders transitioning from producers to managers;
- Core business utilization vs. new capability exploration;
- Delegation costs, recruitment delays, and founder bottlenecks;
- Sales fluctuations and target ratchets brought by project-based revenue;
- Professional services transitioning from personal delivery to productization;
- Organizations building a second curve under cash flow pressure.
These are just examples. Generate more accurate search hypotheses based on the user's structural fingerprint.
Write clearly for each hypothesis:
markdown
Candidate problem family:
Shared structure with the real-world problem:
Differences that may break the analogy:
Evidence to search for:
Step 4: Research Historical Cases
First check user-specified materials and local knowledge base. Use online search verification when involving specific figures, times, decisions, outcomes, theoretical attributions, or original quotes.
Source priority:
- Letters, memos, interviews, shareholder letters, and official archives of the parties involved;
- Academic papers, university cases, authoritative biographies, and contemporary reports;
- Edited business media and professional institutions;
- Secondary summaries can only be used to discover clues, not to support key conclusions alone.
Try to find 2 independent sources for each core fact. Cite specific pages instead of just search result pages. If reliable evidence cannot be found, state "not yet verified" and reduce the conclusion strength.
By default, select 4–6 cases covering the four evidence roles below:
- Closest successful case: Highest structural similarity, and completed the transformation the user cares about;
- Cross-domain or mechanism repetition sample: Different industry or era, but same underlying constraints;
- Failed case: Still failed after adopting the candidate mechanism, used to check if the mechanism is overestimated;
- Counterexample or boundary case: Succeeded without adopting the mainstream mechanism, or reveals that the same solution is only effective under specific conditions.
Failed cases and counterexamples serve different tasks and cannot replace each other. If a certain type cannot be found, must explain the search scope, reason for absence, and its impact on conclusion strength.
Step 5: Restore Cases One by One
Use the same set of fields for each case to avoid picking only details favorable to the conclusion:
markdown
## Case: {Person/Organization, Time}
- Original situation:
- Real constraints:
- Optional solutions at that time:
- Actual decision:
- Execution cost:
- Subsequent outcomes:
- Evidence:
- Evidence status: Verified fact / Researcher's interpretation / Inference in this study / To be verified
- Similarities with the user:
- Differences from the user:
- Analogy validity: High / Medium / Low
- Extractable mechanisms:
- Parts that cannot be copied:
Do not fabricate the inner motives of the parties involved. Only describe motives when supported by behaviors and materials.
Step 6: Build Analogy Matrix
Put the real-world problem and all cases into the same table:
| Case | Stage similarity | Revenue structure similarity | Scarce resource similarity | Lock-in mechanism similarity | Pressure mechanism similarity | Outcome comparability | Overall credibility |
|---|
Use High/Medium/Low for scoring, and add 1 sentence of reason. Do not use undefined precise scores to create a false sense of certainty.
If a case only has similarities in industry or figure identity, with most structural dimensions being Low, eliminate it.
Step 7: Extract Recurring Mechanisms
Look for differences that explain "why some people got out of the predicament while others remained trapped":
markdown
| Recurring mechanism | Cases it appears in | Possible causal explanation | Establishment conditions | Failure boundary | Evidence strength |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Common mechanisms may involve:
- Reserve protected resources for capability building;
- First reduce the delegability of work, then recruit;
- Use processes, products, or positions to take over the founder's repetitive work;
- Decouple sales fluctuations from personal daily emotions;
- Distinguish between work that maintains cash flow and work that creates future options;
- Replace the continuously rising single peak with phased goals.
These are just candidate mechanisms. Do not adopt them in advance without case evidence.
Step 8: Determine if There is a Standard Answer
Output one of three conclusions based on evidence:
A. Mature Consensus
Multiple high-credibility cases and systematic studies support the same mechanism simultaneously, which still holds after being tested by failed cases and counterexamples, with stable applicable conditions. Only when case stories converge but lack systematic studies, can it be labeled as a conditional answer at most.
B. Conditional Answer
The mechanism is repeatedly effective, but depends on scale, cash flow, talent supply, industry rhythm, or personal goals. Must include the conditions in the answer.
C. No Unified Answer Yet
Cases have obvious differences, or historical conditions differ enough to break the analogy. At this time, provide applicable scenarios of different paths and retain uncertainty.
Use the following sentence structure for standard answers:
When
is met, the repeatedly effective practice in history is
, because
. When
occurs, this answer is prone to failure.
Avoid treating tool names, a celebrity's personal habits, or a motto as a standard answer.
Step 9: Control the Depth of Real-World Suggestions
Choose the stopping position based on user authorization:
| User request | Stopping position |
|---|
| "First locate", "First find historical analogies", "Don't answer my question yet" | Provide structural positioning, case research plan, and candidate problem families; wait for user confirmation before digging deeper |
| "Research how it was solved before" | Complete cases, analogy matrix, and standard answer |
| "Combine with my current situation, what should I do" | Add 1–3 verifiable actions after historical research |
| "Help me make a complete plan" | Pass the mechanism to or for further processing |
Do not automatically make real-world decisions for the user just because you have a historical answer.
Default Output
markdown
## Historical Positioning of the Current Problem
**Structural Proposition**: {One sentence}
**Structural Fingerprint**:
- Subject and stage:
- Revenue and delivery:
- Scarce resources:
- Core tension:
- Lock-in cycle:
- Pressure mechanism:
## Candidate Problem Families
|---|---|---|---|
## Historical Cases
{Write 3–5 cases according to unified fields}
## Analogy Validity
{Analogy matrix and elimination explanation}
## Recurring Mechanisms
{Recurring mechanism table}
## Standard Answer Judgment
**Conclusion Level**: Mature Consensus / Conditional Answer / No Unified Answer Yet
**Answer**: {Mechanism with conditions and boundaries}
## Insights for the Current Problem
{Abide by the authorized depth of the user}
## To Be Confirmed
- {Facts that will change case selection or conclusion}
## Sources
- {Clickable specific sources}
When the user only requests a research plan, omit the case conclusions that have not been studied yet, and output search hypotheses, case selection criteria, evidence standards, and materials to be checked in the next round.
Quality Self-Check
Check item by item before delivery:
- Extracted structural fingerprint from the user's original words;
- Similarity of historical cases comes from structure, not just identity or industry;
- Checked success, failure, and counterexamples simultaneously;
- Key historical facts have traceable sources;
- No fabricated quotes, motives, or causal relationships;
- Clearly stated differences and non-copyable parts of each case;
- "Standard answer" includes applicable conditions, causal mechanisms, and failure boundaries;
- Reduced conclusion strength when evidence is insufficient;
- Did not cross the boundary to output a complete action plan when the user requested not to solve the real-world problem yet;
- Followed Chinese Copywriting Guidelines for Chinese content;
- Avoided binary sentences that first negate then reverse.