1. 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.
2. Compare mechanisms, focus less on legends. Pay attention to how parties allocate time, capital, organization, products, and risks, and how these decisions affect outcomes.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Clarify mapping boundaries. For each case, explain "where it is the same", "where it is different", and "whether the difference will break the analogy".
6. 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.
7. Distinguish facts, inferences, and assumptions. Unverifiable anecdotes, quotes, and causal relationships cannot be presented as facts.
8. 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.

A

{subject}

in the

{stage}

stage, relying on

{revenue or delivery structure}

, cannot invest in

{capability building}

due to

{lock-in mechanism}

, while being continuously pulled by

{pressure mechanism}

.

• 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.

Candidate problem family:
Shared structure with the real-world problem:
Differences that may break the analogy:
Evidence to search for:

1. Letters, memos, interviews, shareholder letters, and official archives of the parties involved;
2. Academic papers, university cases, authoritative biographies, and contemporary reports;
3. Edited business media and professional institutions;
4. Secondary summaries can only be used to discover clues, not to support key conclusions alone.

• 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.

• 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.

| Recurring mechanism | Cases it appears in | Possible causal explanation | Establishment conditions | Failure boundary | Evidence strength |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|

• 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.

When

{condition}

is met, the repeatedly effective practice in history is

{mechanism}

, because

{causal explanation}

. When

{boundary}

occurs, this answer is prone to failure.

• Subject and stage:
• Revenue and delivery:
• Scarce resources:
• Core tension:
• Lock-in cycle:
• Pressure mechanism:

• {Facts that will change case selection or conclusion}

• {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.

---

• 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.