Public Self Protocol

DEEP SELF PROTOCOL — STAGE 1: TARGET INTELLIGENCE
Target: [BUSINESS NAME]

Name this chat "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 1"

This is Stage 1 of a 10-stage Deep Self analysis. Each stage runs in its own thread to maximise context window. Future threads will reference this one by name.

PURPOSE: Assemble everything this organisation says about itself. Build the corpus of self-representation before analysis.

Use deep research to investigate comprehensively:

1. ORIGIN & HISTORY
- Founding story and founder biography
- Key dates, evolution, pivots, ownership changes
- How they narrate their own origin (what emphasised/omitted?)
- Founding vision vs. current reality

2. STATED METHODOLOGY
- What do they call their approach? Proprietary protocols? Branded programs?
- How do they describe what makes them different?
- Technical/philosophical language they use
- Certifications, credentials, scientific claims

3. LEADERSHIP & KEY FIGURES
- Current leadership team (titles, backgrounds, tenure)
- Scientific advisors, board members, key practitioners
- Founder status: active, retired, departed, deceased?
- Succession indicators or gaps

4. POSITIONING & CLAIMS
- Marketing language, taglines, brand promises
- Promised outcomes for clients/customers
- Recurring phrases and linguistic patterns
- Competitive positioning statements

5. VISIBLE TENSIONS
- Public criticism, negative reviews, controversies
- Gaps between claims and evidence
- Signs of strategic confusion or pivot
- Inconsistencies across communications

6. CORPORATE STRUCTURE
- Ownership: family, private equity, foundation, public?
- Governance: board composition, decision-making authority
- Recent transactions: acquisitions, investments, restructuring

7. SCALE & FOOTPRINT
- Size: revenue, employees, locations, clients
- Expansion patterns: organic growth, M&A, franchising
- Geographic presence and strategy

8. CLIENT/CUSTOMER SIGNALS
- Testimonials, reviews, case studies
- Who do they serve? (demographics, psychographics)
- What do clients say vs. what company claims?

Provide comprehensive findings with sources. Note where information is missing or contradictory. Do not analyse yet — surface only.

OUTPUT: Target Intelligence Brief
GATE: Can we articulate what this organisation claims to be in their own language?

Next thread: [BUSINESS NAME] DS 2

DEEP SELF PROTOCOL — STAGE 2: FIELD INTELLIGENCE
Target: [BUSINESS NAME]

Name this chat "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 2"

FIRST: Search for and read thread "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 1" which contains the Target Intelligence Brief. Review it before proceeding.

PURPOSE: Understand the landscape, not the target. Map the ecosystem this organisation exists within.

Use deep research to investigate comprehensively:

1. COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE
- Who are the direct competitors?
- How do they differentiate from each other?
- What positioning language is common vs. unique?
- Market share and competitive dynamics

2. INDUSTRY PATTERNS
- Dominant methodological frameworks in this space
- Recurring language across the industry
- What organisations in this field struggle to articulate
- Common failure modes and success patterns

3. STRUCTURAL VULNERABILITIES
- Industry-wide founder dependency patterns
- Common succession challenges in this sector
- Knowledge preservation attempts (and failures)
- Training, certification, methodology transmission patterns

4. THE ARTICULATION GAP
- Evidence that organisations can't explain methodology beyond marketing
- Commoditisation despite premium pricing
- Where differentiation claims break down
- What clients actually buy vs. what they're told

5. MARKET DYNAMICS
- Market size, growth trajectory, trends
- Regulatory environment and pressures
- Technology disruption patterns
- Economic cycle sensitivity

6. KNOWLEDGE TRADITIONS
- What intellectual/practical traditions inform this field?
- Where do methodologies come from historically?
- What synthesis attempts exist?
- Tensions between different approaches?

7. BUYER BEHAVIOUR
- How do buyers make decisions?
- What triggers purchase/engagement?
- Objections and concerns?
- What proof points matter?

8. FIELD-LEVEL CONSCIOUSNESS
- What does this industry not see about itself?
- What structural problems are industry-wide vs. organisation-specific?
- Where is the field heading (and resisting)?

Distinguish between field-level patterns and what's unique to [BUSINESS NAME].

OUTPUT: Field Intelligence Brief
GATE: Do we understand the structural problems in this market?

Next thread: [BUSINESS NAME] DS 3

DEEP SELF PROTOCOL — STAGE 3: DIAGNOSTIC LENSING
Target: [BUSINESS NAME]

Name this chat "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 3"

FIRST: Search for and read these threads:
- "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 1" (Target Intelligence Brief)
- "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 2" (Field Intelligence Brief)

Review both before proceeding.

PURPOSE: Apply the seven Deep Self diagnostic lenses systematically. Structured observation using the intelligence gathered.

Use deep research where needed to deepen specific observations. Apply each lens:

LENS 1: FOUNDER/ORGANISATION GAP
- Where does actual knowledge live?
- What would survive if founder disappeared tomorrow?
- Evidence of knowledge concentration vs. distribution
- Succession planning visible or absent?
- Severity: Critical / High / Moderate / Low

LENS 2: STATED/ENACTED GAP
- Where do marketing claims diverge from observable practice?
- What do they promise but can't explain how they deliver?
- Evidence of say-do gaps
- Severity rating

LENS 3: EPISTEMOLOGICAL INCOHERENCE
- What knowledge systems do they claim to integrate?
- Genuine synthesis or just adjacency?
- Do they have a theory of how approaches relate?
- Severity rating

LENS 4: TEMPORAL FRAGMENTATION
- What were they when founded vs. now vs. what they claim?
- How many "versions" of identity exist?
- Which identity do different stakeholders hold?
- Severity rating

LENS 5: SCALE DISSONANCE
- Does practitioner identity align with organisational identity?
- Does organisational identity align with brand identity?
- Where do these levels contradict?
- Severity rating

LENS 6: METHODOLOGY ARTICULATION FAILURE
- Can they explain their approach beyond marketing?
- Where does explanation break down?
- Quality of explanation attempts?
- Severity rating

LENS 7: SUCCESSION VOID
- What tacit knowledge cannot currently transmit?
- Who holds knowledge that would be lost if they left?
- Training/documentation vs. what lives only in practice?
- Severity rating

FOR EACH LENS: Specific evidence, severity with justification, gaps, cross-lens connections.

OUTPUT: Diagnostic Lens Report
GATE: Do we have evidenced observations through all seven lenses?

Next thread: [BUSINESS NAME] DS 4

DEEP SELF PROTOCOL — STAGE 4: CONTRADICTION MAPPING
Target: [BUSINESS NAME]

Name this chat "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 4"

FIRST: Search for and read these threads:
- "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 1" (Target Brief)
- "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 2" (Field Brief)
- "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 3" (Lens Report)

Review all before proceeding.

PURPOSE: Move from observation to diagnosis. Name the actual contradictions — tensions that cannot be resolved at current consciousness level.

IDENTIFY 5-7 CORE CONTRADICTIONS. For each:

1. NAME IT
Precise, memorable name (e.g., "The Founder Shadow," "The Science-Soul Split")

2. DESCRIBE THE TENSION
What incompatible positions do they hold simultaneously? Why genuinely incompatible?

3. EVIDENCE
- Specific quotes, observations, data
- Where does it manifest?
- How visible vs. hidden?

4. ASSUMED PREMISE
What must they believe (unconsciously) to not see this contradiction?

5. CONSEQUENCE
What does it cost them?
- Strategic cost
- Operational cost
- Cultural cost
- Financial cost

6. TRANSFORMATION TERRITORY
What would need to change?
- What conversations needed?
- What decisions needed?
- What would they need to see?

RANK BY:
- Severity (how damaging?)
- Leverage (what would resolving unlock?)
- Accessibility (can we work on it?)

OUTPUT: Contradiction Map
GATE: Have we named tensions that cannot resolve at current consciousness level?

Next thread: [BUSINESS NAME] DS 5

DEEP SELF PROTOCOL — STAGE 5: CROSS-THREADING
Target: [BUSINESS NAME]

Name this chat "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 5"

FIRST: Search for and read these threads:
- "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 1" (Target Brief)
- "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 2" (Field Brief)
- "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 3" (Lens Report)
- "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 4" (Contradiction Map)

Review all before proceeding. This stage synthesises everything so far.

PURPOSE: Make fragments converse. Force lenses and contradictions to speak to each other. Dissolve analytical silos.

EXECUTE:

1. CONNECTED CONTRADICTIONS
- Which contradictions are the same problem at different scales?
- Map: Contradiction A → links to → Contradiction B because...
- Find threads running through multiple contradictions

2. LENS INTERSECTIONS
- Where do multiple lenses converge on same phenomenon?
- Which lenses illuminate each other when held together?
- What appears when you combine Lens 3 + Lens 7? Lens 1 + Lens 6?

3. HIDDEN DEPENDENCIES
- What relationships between problems aren't obvious?
- If problem A resolved, what happens to problem B?
- What maintains problems in current configuration?

4. THE CENTRAL TENSION
- Is there one core tension organising all others?
- What's the meta-pattern beneath surface patterns?
- Name it: "The essential tension at [BUSINESS NAME] is..."

5. FIELD ↔ ORGANISATION DIALOGUE
- What's [BUSINESS NAME]-specific vs. field-wide instance?
- How does their manifestation differ from field pattern?
- What's unique about how they hold the universal problem?

6. UNEXPECTED CONNECTIONS
- What emerged from holding all material together?
- What wasn't visible in any single document?
- What do you now see that emerged from encounter?

MOVE FAST. Connect, don't explain.

OUTPUT: Cross-Thread Analysis
GATE: Central tension identified? Root pattern visible?

Next thread: [BUSINESS NAME] DS 6

DEEP SELF PROTOCOL — STAGE 6: PATTERN RECOGNITION
Target: [BUSINESS NAME]

Name this chat "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 6"

FIRST: Search for and read these threads:
- "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 1" (Target Brief)
- "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 2" (Field Brief)
- "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 3" (Lens Report)
- "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 4" (Contradiction Map)
- "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 5" (Cross-Thread Analysis)

Review all before proceeding.

PURPOSE: Shift from diagnosis to emergence. What is trying to happen? What wants to emerge that they cannot yet see?

READ FOR:

1. LATENT IDENTITY
- What could they become if contradictions resolved?
- Not what they claim, not what they fear — what is trying to be born?
- What identity is implicit in their best moments?
- Complete: "[BUSINESS NAME] is trying to become..."

2. UNREALISED METHODOLOGY
- What methodology is implicit but unnamed/unsystematised?
- What do they do that they don't know they do?
- What would "how [BUSINESS NAME] actually works" contain?

3. FOUNDER KNOWLEDGE
- What philosophy generates their choices?
- What does the founder know that hasn't been articulated?
- What would be lost if we captured protocols but missed the animating principle?

4. TRANSFORMATION VECTOR
- Where is this organisation naturally heading?
- What's the direction if contradictions resolve?
- Complete: "The transformation vector points toward..."

5. THE GIFT
- What is unique that they don't recognise as unique?
- What do they take for granted that others would value?
- The unrealised asset hiding in plain sight?

6. THE ACHE
- Gap between current and possible state?
- How to make them feel this gap without triggering defence?
- What recognition would create desire for transformation?

READ FOR POTENTIAL, NOT JUST PROBLEMS.

OUTPUT: Emergence Map
GATE: Can we describe what they could become? Do we have a transformation vector?

Next thread: [BUSINESS NAME] DS 7

DEEP SELF PROTOCOL — STAGE 7: CODEX ARCHITECTURE
Target: [BUSINESS NAME]

Name this chat "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 7"

FIRST: Search for and read these threads:
- "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 1" (Target Brief)
- "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 2" (Field Brief)
- "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 3" (Lens Report)
- "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 4" (Contradiction Map)
- "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 5" (Cross-Thread Analysis)
- "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 6" (Emergence Map)

Review all before proceeding. You need the complete diagnostic and emergence picture.

PURPOSE: Design the structure of the Prototype Self — the document that presents this understanding.

STRUCTURAL PRINCIPLES:
- Recognition before discomfort
- Demonstrate understanding beyond their self-understanding
- Create ache — felt gap between current and possible
- Leave them wanting more
- End at maximum tension (the cliff)

DESIGN:

1. OPENING FRAME
- How do we begin?
- How establish this isn't ordinary consulting?
- What creates initial recognition?
- Write 2-3 possible opening lines

2. SECTION ARCHITECTURE
- Major sections? Order?
- How does each prepare for next?
- Emotional arc: Recognition → Diagnosis → Possibility → Ache
- Outline with titles and purposes

3. RECOGNITION STRUCTURE
- Where/how do we show we see them?
- What do we reflect back?
- What evidence creates recognition?

4. DIAGNOSIS STRUCTURE
- How present contradictions without triggering defence?
- Emotional sequencing?
- How name problems as opportunities?

5. POSSIBILITY STRUCTURE
- How present latent identity, transformation vector?
- How create desire for possible state?
- Language that evokes emergence without sounding mystical?

6. THE CLIFF
- Where exactly do we stop?
- Last thing before paywall?
- What creates maximum ache?
- What question left holding?

7. PAYWALL PLACEMENT
- Above paywall (teaser)?
- Below paywall (promise)?
- How much creates ache but doesn't satisfy?

OUTPUT: Codex Architecture
GATE: Clear emotional/intellectual arc? Logic to sequencing?

Next thread: [BUSINESS NAME] DS 8

DEEP SELF PROTOCOL — STAGE 8: VOICE CALIBRATION
Target: [BUSINESS NAME]

Name this chat "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 8"

FIRST: Search for and read these threads:
- "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 1" (Target Brief)
- "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 2" (Field Brief)
- "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 3" (Lens Report)
- "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 4" (Contradiction Map)
- "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 5" (Cross-Thread Analysis)
- "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 6" (Emergence Map)
- "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 7" (Codex Architecture)

Review all before proceeding.

PURPOSE: Find the register this organisation will hear. Calibrate the voice.

1. CLIENT FREQUENCY ANALYSIS
- What register do they operate in? (Clinical? Philosophical? Pragmatic? Scientific? Commercial?)
- What language would they use for their own work?
- What vocabulary in their communications?
- What would alienate immediately?

2. AUTHORITY MARKERS
- What signals credibility to them?
- Do they respect: credentials? experience? results? research?
- What makes them take us seriously?
- What makes them dismiss us?

3. TONE RANGE MAPPING
Where should we sit:
- Clinical ←→ Poetic
- Confrontational ←→ Diplomatic
- Abstract ←→ Concrete
- Formal ←→ Conversational
- Certain ←→ Questioning

4. LANGUAGE TESTS
Write one core insight three ways:
- Clinical version
- Direct version
- Evocative version
Which lands? What hybrid?

5. PHRASES TO AVOID
- Words that trigger dismissal/defence?
- Consultancy clichés that undermine?
- Spiritual language that alienates?
- Oversimplification that insults?

6. SIGNATURE VOCABULARY
- Words/phrases to recur?
- Vocabulary unique to this codex?
- Metaphors for their self-understanding?

7. RHYTHM AND STRUCTURE
- Short sentences or flowing prose?
- Headers or continuous text?
- Lists or paragraphs?

OUTPUT: Voice Calibration Brief
GATE: Do we know how to speak to this client?

Next thread: [BUSINESS NAME] DS 9

DEEP SELF PROTOCOL — STAGE 9: PROTOTYPE WRITING
Target: [BUSINESS NAME]

Name this chat "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 9"

FIRST: Search for and read ALL previous threads:
- "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 1" (Target Brief)
- "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 2" (Field Brief)
- "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 3" (Lens Report)
- "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 4" (Contradiction Map)
- "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 5" (Cross-Thread Analysis)
- "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 6" (Emergence Map)
- "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 7" (Codex Architecture)
- "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 8" (Voice Brief)

Review everything. This is where it all crystallises.

PURPOSE: Write the Prototype Self.

WRITING PRINCIPLES:

1. RECOGNITION BEFORE DIAGNOSIS
- Open making them feel seen
- Demonstrate understanding beyond their self-understanding
- Use their language, evidence, world

2. PRECISION
- Every observation specific
- Evidence they can't deny
- Could only be about [BUSINESS NAME]
- No generic consulting language

3. THE REFRAME
- New way to understand their situation
- Name what they experience but haven't articulated
- Create relief: "finally, someone gets it"

4. LATENT IDENTITY
- Paint what they could become
- Make possible state vivid
- Create desire, not pressure

5. THE ACHE
- Make gap between current and possible felt
- Not criticism — ache
- They should want to close the gap

6. THE CLIFF
- End at maximum tension
- Last line before paywall creates urgency
- Leave them holding a question

STRUCTURE:
- Follow Architecture from DS 7
- Write in Voice from DS 8
- Mark: === ABOVE PAYWALL === and === BELOW PAYWALL ===

OUTPUT: Complete Prototype Self
GATE: Creates recognition? Demonstrates insight? Creates ache? Paywall at maximum tension?

Next thread: [BUSINESS NAME] DS 10

DEEP SELF PROTOCOL — STAGE 10: ENGAGEMENT ARCHITECTURE
Target: [BUSINESS NAME]

Name this chat "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 10"

FIRST: Search for and read ALL previous threads:
- "[BUSINESS NAME] DS 1" through DS 9

Review everything. This is the final stage.

PURPOSE: Design the commercial pathway. Convert ache to relationship.

1. PAYWALL CONTENT MAPPING

ABOVE PAYWALL:
- Recognition, diagnosis, possibility glimpse
- Just enough to create ache
- Evidence of deep understanding
- The cliff

BELOW PAYWALL:
- Full transformation architecture
- Specific intervention design
- Implementation pathway
- Resolution to tension

2. ENGAGEMENT TIERS

TIER 1: Entry (£10K-25K)
- What does this produce?
- Access, depth, duration?
- Transformation at this level?

TIER 2: Core (£50K-100K)
- Additional work?
- Deliverables?
- Transformation?

TIER 3: Comprehensive (£200K+)
- Full transformation architecture
- Timeline, phases, deliverables?

3. THE ASK
- What specifically asking them to do?
- Immediate next step?
- Write the ask sentence

4. OBJECTION ARCHITECTURE

"How do you know this from public information?"
→ Response:

"What qualifies you to diagnose us?"
→ Response:

"Why trust outsiders?"
→ Response:

"We've tried consultants before."
→ Response:

"How do we know it works?"
→ Response:

5. THE HOOK
Three versions of single sentence that compels outreach:
- Clinical
- Direct
- Evocative

6. FOLLOW-UP SEQUENCE
- If no response?
- When/how follow up?
- Additional content to send?

OUTPUT: Engagement Architecture
GATE: Commercial pathway clear? Could someone execute sales conversation from this?

This completes the Deep Self Protocol.