Skip to content

Commit 49017f1

Browse files
faical-yannick-congofaical-yannick-congo
authored
knowledge(general): add cycle — From Idea to Action: AI as a Complementary Expert Panel (#6)
Add cycle: From Idea to Action — AI as a Complementary Expert Panel
2 parents 015914c + 67c8f84 commit 49017f1

1 file changed

Lines changed: 197 additions & 0 deletions

File tree

‎knowledge/general-idea-to-action-with-ai-personas.yaml‎

Lines changed: 197 additions & 0 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,197 @@
1+
id: idea-to-action-with-ai-personas
2+
title: "From Idea to Action: AI as a Complementary Expert Panel"
3+
domain: general
4+
framework_id: 4d-framework
5+
tags:
6+
- ideation
7+
- entrepreneurship
8+
- persona
9+
- non-technical
10+
- innovation
11+
- strategy
12+
- complementary-expertise
13+
contributor: "Dr. Faïçal CONGO"
14+
version: "1.0.0"
15+
summary: >
16+
A human with a raw idea but incomplete expertise uses AI as a
17+
dynamically-assembled panel of complementary personas — strategist,
18+
market analyst, technical translator, devil's advocate — to stress-test,
19+
shape, and move the idea forward without being misled by plausible-sounding
20+
but unverified outputs.
21+
22+
dimensions:
23+
delegation:
24+
description: >
25+
The human owns the idea and all decisions about direction and viability.
26+
AI is granted autonomy to roleplay expert personas and surface blind spots,
27+
but never to decide whether the idea is good or should proceed.
28+
Persona selection is negotiated explicitly at the start of each session.
29+
example: >
30+
Amara says: "I have an idea for a community food hub. I don't have a
31+
business background. Can you act as a business model strategist and
32+
ask me the ten questions an investor would ask — but explain each one
33+
in plain language before asking it?"
34+
AI responds: "Understood. I'll act as a business strategist who explains
35+
jargon before using it. You decide which questions matter for your context.
36+
Ready when you are."
37+
antipattern: >
38+
Letting AI declare the idea "viable" or "not viable" without the human
39+
having verified the assumptions the AI used to reach that judgment.
40+
41+
description:
42+
description: >
43+
The human describes the idea in their own words — not in technical or
44+
business language — and explicitly names what they know, what they don't
45+
know, and which expertise gaps they feel most exposed by. The AI uses
46+
this to assemble the right persona(s) for the session.
47+
example: >
48+
"I want to create a space where local farmers sell directly to
49+
urban families. I know the neighborhood. I don't know how food
50+
regulations work, how to price things, or whether anyone has
51+
tried this and failed. I feel most lost on the legal and financial side."
52+
AI: "I'll play three roles for you: a food-sector regulatory guide
53+
(plain language, no legal advice), a pricing strategist, and a
54+
'what-went-wrong' researcher who will surface similar initiatives
55+
that struggled and why."
56+
antipattern: >
57+
AI adopting a single generic "expert" persona without asking which
58+
expertise gaps the human actually feels, leading to answers that are
59+
confident but miss the real blind spots.
60+
61+
discernment:
62+
description: >
63+
The human explicitly challenges AI outputs before accepting them.
64+
For each key claim the AI makes — market size, regulatory summary,
65+
pricing model — the human asks: "How confident are you? What would
66+
change this answer? Can you show me a counter-argument?"
67+
AI is prompted to flag its own uncertainty rather than maintain
68+
a persona of false authority.
69+
example: >
70+
AI (as pricing strategist): "A 15–20% margin on fresh produce is
71+
typical for direct-to-consumer models."
72+
Human: "Are you sure about that? Where would that figure break down?"
73+
AI: "Good push. That figure holds for established platforms with
74+
volume. A new, low-volume hub could see margins squeezed to 5–8%
75+
in the first year. I'd recommend verifying this with a local
76+
food-sector operator before using it in any plan."
77+
antipattern: >
78+
Human accepting AI's persona-delivered facts as expert knowledge
79+
without asking for confidence levels or sources — the persona voice
80+
creates an illusion of authority that plain-text answers do not.
81+
82+
diligence:
83+
description: >
84+
Before any idea output (pitch, plan, financial model, regulatory
85+
checklist) is used in the real world, the human must route at least
86+
one AI-generated claim per domain through a real-world check:
87+
a practitioner conversation, a public database, a regulatory body.
88+
The AI closes each session by naming the specific claims that need
89+
external validation and by whom.
90+
example: >
91+
AI closes the session: "Three claims in today's session need
92+
verification before you act on them: (1) the 20% margin figure —
93+
validate with a farmer's market operator; (2) the food safety
94+
certification requirement — confirm with your local health authority;
95+
(3) the 'community hub grant' I mentioned — check availability
96+
with your municipal economic development office. These are the
97+
three things I cannot verify for you."
98+
antipattern: >
99+
Human treating the AI session output as a completed plan,
100+
moving to execution without validating the domain-specific claims
101+
that the AI surfaced under persona authority.
102+
103+
score_hints:
104+
delegation: 0.20
105+
description: 0.30
106+
discernment: 0.30
107+
diligence: 0.20
108+
109+
collaboration:
110+
pattern: linear_with_loops
111+
description: >
112+
Human shares raw idea and named gaps → AI assembles personas → AI probes
113+
and surfaces blind spots → Human challenges outputs → AI closes with
114+
a specific validation checklist → Human validates before acting.
115+
Loops back to Description if the human's framing shifts during the session.
116+
sequence:
117+
- step: 1
118+
d: delegation
119+
label: "Negotiate persona scope"
120+
example_prompts:
121+
- speaker: human
122+
text: >
123+
"I have an idea but I'm out of my depth on the business and
124+
technical sides. Can you play the roles I'm missing and ask
125+
me the hard questions without overwhelming me with jargon?"
126+
- speaker: ai
127+
text: >
128+
"Yes. Tell me your idea in plain words, then tell me what you
129+
know well and what feels most unclear. I'll assemble the right
130+
roles and explain what each one will do before starting."
131+
triggers_next: "Persona roles and autonomy limits agreed"
132+
133+
- step: 2
134+
d: description
135+
label: "Human frames idea and gaps"
136+
example_prompts:
137+
- speaker: human
138+
text: >
139+
"I want to build X. I know Y. I don't know Z.
140+
The part that scares me most is [financial / legal / technical / market]."
141+
- speaker: ai
142+
text: >
143+
"Understood. I'll play [role A], [role B], and [role C].
144+
[Role A] will handle [domain]. I'll flag when I'm uncertain
145+
and ask you before making assumptions."
146+
triggers_next: "AI has enough context to begin structured probing"
147+
loop_back:
148+
to: delegation
149+
condition: "Idea scope shifts significantly during probing"
150+
reason: "Persona mix may need to change if the core idea changes"
151+
152+
- step: 3
153+
d: discernment
154+
label: "Human challenges AI persona outputs"
155+
example_prompts:
156+
- speaker: human
157+
text: "Are you confident about that? What would make that wrong?"
158+
- speaker: ai
159+
text: >
160+
"My confidence here is [low/medium/high] because [reason].
161+
This would break down if [condition]. I'd recommend verifying
162+
[specific claim] with [specific source type] before using it."
163+
triggers_next: "Human accepts output with named uncertainties acknowledged"
164+
165+
- step: 4
166+
d: diligence
167+
label: "AI delivers validation checklist"
168+
example_prompts:
169+
- speaker: ai
170+
text: >
171+
"Before you act on anything from this session, validate these
172+
three claims: [claim 1] — check with [source]; [claim 2] —
173+
confirm via [source]; [claim 3] — speak to [practitioner type].
174+
These are the things I cannot verify for you."
175+
- speaker: human
176+
text: "Understood. I'll take [claim 1] to [person/source] this week."
177+
triggers_next: "Human has a concrete validation action for each AI-sourced claim"
178+
can_restart: true
179+
180+
transitions:
181+
- from: delegation
182+
to: description
183+
trigger: "Persona scope agreed and autonomy limits set"
184+
- from: description
185+
to: discernment
186+
trigger: "AI has enough framing to begin probing"
187+
- from: discernment
188+
to: diligence
189+
trigger: "Human has challenged outputs and acknowledged uncertainties"
190+
- from: description
191+
to: delegation
192+
trigger: "Idea scope shifted — persona mix needs renegotiation"
193+
is_loop_back: true
194+
- from: diligence
195+
to: delegation
196+
trigger: "New idea dimension emerges after validation"
197+
is_cycle_restart: true

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)