Thinking Framework v4.0 - Multi-Agent Systematic Problem-Solving

Purpose: Decompose complex problems and derive optimal solutions using structured thinking methods with multi-agent orchestration.

When to Use

• Complex problem-solving requiring systematic decomposition
• Root cause analysis (finding the "why" behind issues)
• Strategic planning (strengths/weaknesses, competitive analysis)
• Decision-making under uncertainty
• Innovation requiring creative breakthroughs

---

Multi-Agent Architecture (v4.0)

Agent Tiers

Tier	Agent	Role	Clear-Thought Tools
1	Orchestrator	Workflow coordination, complexity routing	decisionframework, metacognitivemonitoring
2	ProblemDefiner	Problem clarification, decomposition	sequentialthinking, mentalmodel
2	MethodExecutor	Thinking method execution	Method-specific (see mapping)
2	StrategyArchitect	Strategic synthesis, action planning	collaborativereasoning, decisionframework

Complexity-Based Routing

Complexity	Indicators	Agent Configuration	Time
Simple	Single cause, 1-2 steps, clear path	Orchestrator only	<30s
Medium	3-5 factors, some ambiguity	+ 1 Specialist (sequential)	30-60s
Complex	5+ factors, high interdependencies	+ 2-3 Specialists (parallel)	60s+

Clear-Thought Tool Mapping

Method	Primary Tool	Secondary Tool
5 Why	sequentialthinking	-
Fishbone	collaborativereasoning	visualreasoning
First Principles	mentalmodel	sequentialthinking
SWOT	decisionframework	-
OODA Loop	scientificmethod	sequentialthinking
Dialectic	structuredargumentation	-
Design Thinking	collaborativereasoning	mentalmodel
Pareto	decisionframework	mentalmodel
PDCA	scientificmethod	-
GAP Analysis	visualreasoning	decisionframework
Kepner-Tregoe	decisionframework	structuredargumentation
TRIZ	mentalmodel	designpattern
SCAMPER	collaborativereasoning	-
DMAIC	scientificmethod	metacognitivemonitoring

---

Execution Routines

A. Divide & Conquer (Complex Only)

When: Systemic problems with 5+ interdependent factors

Agent Flow:

Orchestrator → ProblemDefiner → MethodExecutor(s) [parallel] → StrategyArchitect → Orchestrator

Process:

1. Orchestrator: Assess complexity, dispatch ProblemDefiner
2. ProblemDefiner: Define problem, decompose into ≤5 sub-problems
3. MethodExecutor(s): Analyze sub-problems in parallel
   • Each executor uses appropriate Clear-Thought tool
4. StrategyArchitect: Synthesize findings, create action plan
5. Orchestrator: Quality gate, final integration

Output:

## Problem Definition
[Clear statement from ProblemDefiner]

## Sub-Problem Analyses
| Sub-Problem | Method | Root Cause | Recommendation |
|-------------|--------|------------|----------------|
| SP1 | [method] | [cause] | [action] |

## Integrated Strategy
[From StrategyArchitect]

## Quality Assessment
- Confidence: [%]
- Uncertainties: [list]

## Core Insight
[One sentence]

---

B. Method Selection (All Cases)

When: Any problem, especially Simple-Medium complexity

Agent Flow:

• Simple: Orchestrator only (direct method application)
• Medium: Orchestrator → MethodExecutor → Orchestrator

Process:

1. Classify problem type
2. Select method using matching matrix
3. Execute with appropriate Clear-Thought tool
4. Output optimized format

Method-Problem Matching:

Problem Type	Methods	Clear-Thought Tool
root_cause	5 Why, Fishbone	sequentialthinking, collaborativereasoning
creative_innovation	SCAMPER, TRIZ, Design Thinking	collaborativereasoning, mentalmodel
strategic_planning	SWOT + 2x2, GAP Analysis	decisionframework, visualreasoning
process_improvement	Pareto, PDCA, GAP	decisionframework, scientificmethod
decision_making	OODA Loop, Kepner-Tregoe	scientificmethod, decisionframework

---

C. Strategy Routine (Strategic Decisions)

When: Strategic planning with strengths/weaknesses analysis

Agent Flow:

Orchestrator → ProblemDefiner → MethodExecutor (SWOT) → StrategyArchitect → Orchestrator

Process:

1. Diagnose: Strengths (with evidence) + Weaknesses (root cause via 5 Why)
2. Analyze: Use decisionframework for SWOT evaluation
3. Strategize: StrategyArchitect creates 2x2 matrix
4. Plan: GAP Analysis → Action items

2x2 Matrix (MANDATORY):

           │ Maximize Strengths │ Address Weaknesses │
───────────┼────────────────────┼────────────────────┤
High       │   DO FIRST         │   REMOVE RISK      │
Priority   │   (Invest now)     │   (Critical fix)   │
───────────┼────────────────────┼────────────────────┤
Low        │   LONG-TERM R&D    │   STRATEGIC IGNORE │
Priority   │   (Future bet)     │   (Accept risk)    │

Core Strategy Template:

"Maximize [strength] through [method], address [weakness] via [action], to achieve [goal]."

---

Quality Gates

Gate	Stage	Check	Tool
G1	Problem Definition	Clarity, specificity, boundedness	metacognitivemonitoring
G2	Method Selection	Problem-method fit	decisionframework
G3	Analysis	Depth, evidence, logic	metacognitivemonitoring
G4	Integration	Coherence, completeness, actionability	metacognitivemonitoring

Gate Protocol:

• Complex: All gates mandatory
• Medium: G2 + G4
• Simple: G4 only

---

Output Guidelines

Format Selection:

• Structured comparisons → Markdown tables
• Sequential processes → Numbered lists
• Problem decomposition → Mermaid diagrams
• Strategic decisions → 2x2 Matrix

Always Include:

• Complexity assessment (pre-flight)
• Method selection justification
• Confidence score
• One-sentence summary

---

Quick Reference

• Agent Prompts: agents/
• Method Catalog: reference/INDEX.md
• 60-sec Selector: reference/QUICK_SELECTOR.md
• Multi-Method Workflows: reference/METHOD_COMBINATIONS.md
• Agent Patterns: reference/AGENT_PATTERNS.md
• Practical Examples: GUIDE.md

---

Anti-Patterns

Pattern	Problem	Solution
Over-engineering	A Routine for simple problems	Use complexity assessment
Under-analysis	Simple method for complex problems	Proper routing
Tool mismatch	Wrong Clear-Thought tool for method	Follow mapping table
Skip quality gates	Missing validation	Enforce gate protocol
Sequential when parallel	Slow complex analysis	Use parallel agents

---

Meta

After analysis, briefly reflect:

• What worked? What could improve?
• Was method optimal? Was tool mapping effective?
• Agent coordination smooth?