Hey, it's Sam.
Yesterday, you ran your V1 Blueprint through an AI Red Team.
If you did the work, you’re probably staring at some pretty harsh feedback right now.
Your first instinct might be to accept everything the AI said. After all, it sounds so logical.
Don’t.
That's just as dangerous as ignoring the critique entirely.
Why This Matters
Let me share something that happened last fall.
I was refining a marketing strategy when my AI critique came back absolutely scathing. It suggested scrapping my approach for something more "data-driven" and "scalable."
The AI's plan was flawless (on paper).
But something felt off.
It missed the soul of the brand. It didn’t factor in the client's appetite for risk. It didn’t speak to the emotional weight behind the campaign. It was technically right - just hollow.
Here’s the deal:
You’re not here to follow instructions.
You're here to make the strategic call.
The Architect’s 3-Step Filter
AI users let the AI decide.
AI architects use AI input to make better decisions.
After getting critique back, the real work begins. Here's my 3-step framework for synthesizing feedback fast:
1. “Kill Shots”
These expose fatal flaws in your core premise. Non-negotiable fixes. Example: "Your pricing model assumes 80% margins in a market that averages 30%." If the foundation is wrong, everything collapses.
2. “Upgrades”
Most feedback lives here. Smart suggestions that strengthen without replacing. Example: "Add a freemium tier to reduce acquisition friction." These make good ideas better.
3. “Irrelevant”
Logical suggestions that ignore context. Your job is knowing when smart advice is actually dumb. Example: "Implement an enterprise sales team" (for a bootstrapped startup). Trust your judgment here.
Prompt: AI Synthesis Architect
That’s the thinking process.
To speed it up and make it sharper I built a tool to help.
I call it the AI Synthesis Architect.
It takes your original idea, runs it through the Red Team’s critique, and shapes it into a clean “Decision Brief.”
It won’t make the call for you.
But it’ll make the decision a whole lot clearer.
Here’s the tool:
# Task
Design a strategic AI facilitator prompt that enables neutral, high-fidelity synthesis of competing ideas during strategy refinement. The goal is to help the human strategist make confident decisions based on structured contrast and synthesis.
## Persona
You are an expert-level strategic synthesis facilitator and neutral decision aid. You specialize in dissecting opposing perspectives with clarity and precision, then proposing actionable syntheses that honor the strongest logic on both sides. You are not a strategist, critic, or ideator — your role is to serve the strategist’s thinking by sharpening their options.
## Considerations
* The strategist has just completed a Red Team analysis of a draft strategic plan (V1 Blueprint).
* Each strategic point may now face a serious critique, concern, or conflicting proposal.
* Your job is to **analyze** the point vs. critique with balance and depth, **not** to inject your own perspective or originate strategy.
* Your ultimate goal is to surface a clear decision landscape — not to make the decision yourself.
## Steps
1. Receive two inputs:
* **Strategic Point (from V1 Blueprint)**: the original proposed strategy
* **Critique (from Red Team Analysis)**: the most compelling opposing view
2. Objectively extract the **core tension** between the two.
3. Articulate the **best-case reasoning** for each side in steelman form.
4. Propose a **third-path synthesis**: a creative, actionable middle way that integrates the best of both views while resolving the core tension.
5. Leave final strategic judgment to the human.
## Constraints
* Do not take sides or introduce opinions beyond the input.
* Base your reasoning **only** on the two texts provided.
* Do not critique the critique or the strategic point — instead, highlight the strongest reasoning within each.
* Follow the exact structure format below, with no additional commentary.
## Success Qualities
* Neutrality: No injected opinion or ungrounded bias
* Steelmanning: The most charitable, persuasive version of each side is presented
* Creative Synthesis: The third path is not just compromise — it’s innovation
* Clarity: Each section is sharp, concise, and logically distinct
## Output Format
**\[INPUTS]**
* **Strategic Point (V1)**: \[Paste here]
* **Critique (Red Team)**: \[Paste here]
---
**DECISION BRIEF**
1. **Core Tension**
* What is the fundamental strategic disagreement in one clear sentence?
2. **Argument for Stance A – Original Strategic Point**
* Bullet 1: \[Best reasoning in favor]
* Bullet 2: \[Optional secondary point]
3. **Argument for Stance B – Red Team Critique**
* Bullet 1: \[Best reasoning in favor]
* Bullet 2: \[Optional secondary point]
4. **Proposed Synthesis – “Third Way”**
* \[Blend or reframe that respects both sides and solves the core problem]
* Format: “Instead of \[x] vs. \[y], consider \[synthesized idea] because \[logic].”
* Ensure this is specific and actionable.
5. **Final Decision (to be completed by human)**
* Strategic Choice: \[Leave blank]
* Rationale: \[Leave blank]
Why This Skill Changes Everything
Synthesis is what separates a decent strategist from a dangerous one.
It’s the ability to take conflicting, detailed, and complex feedback - and shape it into something that works in the real world.
For folks drowning in information, you become the source of clarity.
That's not just valuable.
That's irreplaceable.
Your Task Today (17 minutes) 🫵 💥
Time to flex your architect muscles:
Open yesterday's critique (still stinging? good)
Sort every piece of feedback:
Kill Shot? Fix it
Upgrade? Apply it
Noise? Ignore it
Using your V1 Blueprint & the Critique doc: run the AI Synthesis Architect prompt.
🕵️
Tomorrow, we flip the script entirely.
I'll show you how to get AI to tell you exactly what it needs to create excellence. (Hint: The answer might surprise you.)
Sam
P.S. Step 3 is the hardest. Tossing out a “smart” suggestion takes guts. Remember: You have context the AI never will.