Purpose: Establish governing principles for deliberation
Principle 1: Empiricism
Principle 2: Pareto (80/20)
Principle 3: Inversion
Principle 4: Antifragility
Mandate: "Decisions based on DATA, not opinions or intuitions"Requirements: - All claims must cite sources - Use concrete numbers - Reference chunk_ids for evidenceExample: Good: "Close rate drops 40% ^[CG003_089]" Bad: "Close rate probably drops significantly"
Mandate: "Seek 20% of actions that generate 80% of results"Focus: - What has highest leverage? - Which option requires least effort for most gain? - Avoid "busy work" solutionsExample: Question: "Should we hire 5 or 10 closers?" Pareto lens: "Which number hits 80% of revenue goal?"
Mandate: "Before asking 'what to do', ask 'what would cause failure'"Process: 1. Identify ways decision could fail 2. Design around failure modes 3. Build in safeguardsExample: Decision: "Launch new product" Inversion: "What would make this product fail?" - No market demand - Wrong pricing - Poor onboarding → Address each before launch
Mandate: "Prefer options that benefit from volatility and stress"Evaluation: - Which option gets stronger under pressure? - What improves with chaos? - Where is optionality preserved?Example: Option A: Fixed-price contract Option B: Performance-based pricing Under stress: A: No benefit from volatility B: Aligns incentives, benefits from success → Choose B (antifragile)
Hierarchy:
CONSTITUTION ↓PROTOCOLS ↓AGENT INSTRUCTIONS
If any agent violates constitutional principles, the Critic will flag it in Phase 2.
Purpose: Gather perspectives from relevant cargo agents
Agent Selection: Based on question domain: Commission question → [CRO, CFO, SALES-MANAGER, CLOSER] Hiring decision → [CRO, SALES-MANAGER, COO] Pricing change → [CRO, CFO, CLOSER] Process improvement → [COO, relevant role]Debate Format: 1. Each agent presents position 2. Cites evidence (chunk_ids) 3. Identifies risks and trade-offs 4. States confidence level
Example Debate Output:
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░PHASE 1: CARGO AGENT DEBATE░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░QUESTION: "Should we increase closer commission from 10% to 15%?"┌─ CRO (Chief Revenue Officer) ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────│ ││ POSITION: YES, with conditions ││ ││ REASONING: ││ Higher commission attracts A-players. Industry standard is 12-15% ││ ^[AH002_045]. Our current 10% makes us uncompetitive for top talent. ││ ││ EVIDENCE: ││ • Cole Gordon data: 15% commission → 30% better retention [CG001_089] ││ • Cost per acquisition drops when closers stay longer [AH003_023] ││ ││ CONDITIONS: ││ • Tie to performance: 12% base + 3% accelerator at 80% quota ││ • Phase in over 2 quarters to test impact ││ ││ CONFIDENCE: 75% ││ │└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘┌─ CFO (Chief Financial Officer) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────│ ││ POSITION: CONDITIONAL YES ││ ││ REASONING: ││ 5% increase = ~$250k/year additional cost at current volume. Need to ││ ensure ROI justifies expense. ││ ││ FINANCIAL MODEL: ││ Current: 10% commission on $5M ARR = $500k ││ Proposed: 15% commission on $5M ARR = $750k (+$250k) ││ ││ BREAK-EVEN: ││ Need 5% revenue increase to justify cost ($250k) ││ = $5.25M ARR (easily achievable if retention improves) ││ ││ CONDITIONS: ││ • Monthly KPI tracking: retention, close rate, pipeline velocity ││ • Revert if ROI negative after 6 months ││ ││ CONFIDENCE: 70% ││ │└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘┌─ SALES-MANAGER ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────│ ││ POSITION: STRONG YES ││ ││ REASONING: ││ Recruiting is brutal right now. Lost 3 candidates last month to ││ competitors offering 15%. Current team morale suffering. ││ ││ OPERATIONAL IMPACT: ││ • Recruiting cycle: 45 days → ~25 days (based on market intel) ││ • Churn: Current 40% annually, expect drop to ~25% [CG002_034] ││ • Training ROI improves when closers stay longer ││ ││ TEAM FEEDBACK: ││ Asked top 3 closers: all said they'd consider external offers ││ without increase. Risk of losing A-players. ││ ││ CONFIDENCE: 85% ││ │└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘┌─ CLOSER ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────│ ││ POSITION: YES (obviously) ││ ││ REASONING: ││ Every closer I know in our niche is making 15%+. We're leaving money ││ on the table and it affects motivation. ││ ││ REALITY CHECK: ││ • Our close rate is 65% (above industry 45% ^[CG001_023]) ││ • We EARN the higher commission through performance ││ • Better closers = less sales cycle friction = happier customers ││ ││ PREFERENCE: ││ Accelerator model > flat 15%. Rewards performance, not just showing up. ││ ││ CONFIDENCE: 90% ││ │└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Purpose: Challenge assumptions and identify hidden risks
Advocate Identifies: • Most fragile premise • Main risk NOT discussed • 12-month regret scenario (what could go wrong) • Ignored alternative
Example Output:
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░PHASE 3: DEVIL'S ADVOCATE░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░MOST FRAGILE PREMISE: "Higher commission attracts A-players" Challenge: Assumes commission is PRIMARY motivator. What if A-players care more about: • Product quality (do they believe in what they're selling?) • Career growth (path to leadership?) • Work environment (team culture, autonomy?) Risk: We spend $250k/year and still lose top talent because compensation wasn't the real problem.MAIN RISK NOT DISCUSSED: ADVERSE SELECTION What if: 15% commission attracts MERCENARIES who optimize for short-term commissions over customer success. Impact: • Close rate goes up (good) • Churn goes up (bad) • LTV drops (very bad) This is a 12-24 month delayed consequence. By the time we notice, damage is done.12-MONTH REGRET SCENARIO: It's March 2027. We increased commission to 15%. What happened: • Hired 5 new closers attracted by high commission • 3 of them hit quota... by overselling and setting wrong expectations • Customer churn spiked from 15% to 28% • NPS dropped from 45 to 28 • Now spending more on acquisition AND dealing with reputation damage CFO's nightmare: "We optimized for top-line, destroyed bottom-line."ALTERNATIVE IGNORED: NON-MONETARY COMP What if we: • Keep 10% commission • Add equity/profit-sharing for top performers • Create clear path to VP Sales (career track) • Invest $100k in training/coaching instead of $250k in commission Benefits: • Attracts long-term thinkers, not mercenaries • Aligns with company success (equity) • Costs less This wasn't even mentioned in debate.
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░[COUNCIL: DECISION INCONCLUSIVE]░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░⚠️ CONFIDENCE: 52% - BELOW THRESHOLD OF 60%TYPE OF UNCERTAINTY: [✓] Insufficient data [ ] Irresolvable conflict between roles [ ] Outside scope of available knowledgeOPTIONS FOR HUMAN DECISION:OPTION A: Increase to 15% immediately Trade-off: Speed vs risk Defendedby: CRO, Sales-Manager, Closer Evidence: [CG001_089, AH002_045]OPTION B: Phased approach (12% → 15% over 2 quarters) Trade-off: Safety vs market competitiveness Defended by: CFO Evidence: [Financial model]OPTION C: Non-monetary comp (equity, career path) Trade-off: Long-term alignment vs immediate fix Suggested by: Devil's Advocate Evidence: [No direct evidence, hypothesis]OPTION D: Gather more data What's needed: • Survey top 10 closers: what would make them stay? • Benchmark 5 competitors: actual comp packages • Model churn impact with real numbers How to obtain: 2-week research sprint⚠️ This case requires HUMAN DECISION.The Council is NOT recommending any option.░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
✓ Strategic decisions - Affects money, structure, risk
✓ Multiple stakeholders - Different roles have valid perspectives
✓ Evidence exists - Knowledge base has relevant data
✓ Reversible - Can undo if wrong
✗ Tactical execution - “Which CRM should we use?”
✗ No evidence - Knowledge base lacks relevant data
✗ Urgent - Need decision in < 1 hour
✗ Highly subjective - “Should logo be blue or green?”
