[[thesis_product_vision👁️]] # 전라좌수군 견리사의 군령 # Grand Synthesis: 기승전결 (起承轉結) > **Extracted from P1/P2/P3 Cross-Synthesis sections** > **Purpose**: Thesis-level integration document for committee presentation and defense --- ## Three Papers, One Story These three papers form a coherent whole: 1. **P1 ✌️ (U-Shape)** asks: *When* does vagueness pay? - Answer: When modularity enables cheap pivots. 2. **P2 🦾 (Competency Trap)** asks: *How* does early success kill options? - Answer: Through belief-reinforcing capital structures. 3. **P3 🤹 (Optimal Options)** asks: *How many* options should you hold? - Answer: It depends on CR = C/(C+F). --- ## Core Traps and Solutions | Paper | Core Trap | Solution | |-------|-----------|----------| | P1 ✌️ | Middle (neither vague nor concrete) | Go to extremes | | P2 🦾 | Success (commitment lock-in) | Keep doubters on board | | P3 🤹 | Wrong portfolio size | Calibrate to CR | --- ## The Common Thread: Options Have Architecture The value of flexibility depends on the cost structure of commitment vs. flexibility: - **P1 ✌️** focuses on **Technology** architecture (modularity → pivot cost) - **P2 🦾** focuses on **Organization** architecture (cap table → belief lock-in) - **P3 🤹** focuses on **Competition** architecture (CR ratio → market timing) --- ## Theoretical Integration: How P1, P2, P3 Connect ``` P1 (U-Shape) P3 (Newsvendor) P2 (Competency Trap) ↓ ↓ ↓ Modularity determines CR = C/(C+F) determines Success raises switching when vagueness pays optimal option count threshold ↓ ↓ ↓ └──────────────── UNIFIED FRAMEWORK ───────────────────────┘ ↓ Options have architecture. Value depends on cost structure. ``` ### Shared Theoretical Foundation All three papers share: 1. **Real Options Logic**: Strategic choices create/destroy option value 2. **Contingency View**: No universally optimal strategy 3. **Architecture Matters**: Technology/organization structure determines flexibility value ### Where They Diverge | Dimension | P1 | P2 | P3 | |-----------|-----|-----|-----| | Focus | Communication | Learning | Portfolio | | Key Moderator | Modularity | Cap Table | CR Ratio | | Prescription | Go extreme | Keep doubters | Calibrate | --- ## The Complete Story: 기승전결 | Phase | Commander | Paper | Core Question | Answer | |-------|-----------|-------|---------------|--------| | 起 (Intro) | 정운 🐢 | P1 | When does vagueness pay? | When modularity enables cheap pivots | | 承 (Theory) | 권준 🐅 | P2 | How does success kill options? | Through belief-reinforcing capital | | 轉 (Empirics) | 김완 🐙 | P3 | How many options to hold? | V* = f(CR) | | 結 (Discuss) | 어영담 👾 | All | What's the unified framework? | Options have architecture | --- ## The Unified Formula ``` k* = F_D⁻¹(C/(C+F)) ``` Where: - **D** ← from P1 (modularity determines distribution of outcomes) - **C/F** ← from P2 (belief structure determines cost ratio) - **k*** = optimal number of options --- ## The Founder's Complete Journey | Act | State | Paper | Lesson | Formula Component | |-----|-------|-------|--------|-------------------| | 1 | Dreamer | P1 ✌️ | "Vagueness is an Option" | D (distribution) | | 2 | Believer | P2 🦾 | "Success kills options" | C/F (cost ratio) | | 3 | Designer | P3 🤹 | "FOMO is Optimal" | k* (optimal count) | --- ## Actionable Rules Summary | Rule | When to Apply | Action | |------|---------------|--------| | **Tesla Rule** | High modularity + high uncertainty | Stay vague, commit to vision only | | **Waymo Rule** | Frontier tech + believer board risk | Keep doubters on board | | **CR-V Rule** | Any strategic portfolio decision | Calibrate options to CR ratio | | **Bosch Caveat** | Low modularity (hardware/biotech) | Specify early, signal depth | --- ## Empirical Integration: Shared Validity Framework | Validity Type | P1 | P2 | P3 | |---------------|-----|-----|-----| | **Internal** | Interaction design | Process tracing | Model calibration | | **External** | 51K firms | Case triangulation | Industry scan | | **Construct** | NLP validation | Commitment measures | CR estimation | ### Data-Dependent vs. Conceptual Tests - **P1**: Data-dependent (regression on large N) - **P2**: Mixed (Bayesian model + case evidence) - **P3**: Conceptual (newsvendor framework + calibration) ### 김완의 종합 평가 1. **Interesting**: 세 논문 모두 counter-intuitive 발견 제시 2. **Important**: 실무적 함의 명확 (Tesla Rule, Waymo Rule, CR-V plane) 3. **Valid**: - P1: 강건 (다중 robustness) - P2: 중간 (case 의존) - P3: 개념적 타당성 높음, 실증 추가 필요 --- ## Implications: For Entrepreneurs 1. **Know your modularity** before choosing communication strategy 2. **Build opposition into governance** especially for frontier tech 3. **Estimate your CR** before deciding how many paths to pursue 4. **Recognize trap zones**: middle ground (P1), success (P2), wrong portfolio (P3) ## Implications: For Investors 1. **Differentiate productive from destructive ambiguity** based on modularity 2. **Assess cap table diversity** — all believers is a warning sign 3. **Evaluate portfolio strategy against industry CR** — FOMO may be rational 4. **Use decision matrices** not heuristics ("specificity = competence") --- ## The Final Wisdom > **복잡한 것을 단순하게, 단순한 것을 아름답게, 아름다운 것을 기억에 남게.** > "Make the complex simple, the simple beautiful, the beautiful memorable." Strategic vagueness, properly understood, simplifies complexity by deferring premature commitment. But its beauty lies in knowing *when* to remain vague and *when* to specify — a contingency this research illuminates. **필사즉생 (必死卽生)**: The founders who survive embrace the uncomfortable truth — clarity is overrated, success is dangerous, and fear is rational. --- ## 전라좌수군의 임무 완수 *The 전라좌수군 (Jeonla Naval Fleet) has completed its mission:* - 🐢 **정운** (利): 빠르게 실행해 초안을 만들며 문을 열었다 - 🐅 **권준** (思): 혼돈에서 구조를 뽑아내 이론을 세웠다 - 🐙 **김완** (義): 논리와 윤리를 검증하여 의로움을 증명했다 - 👾 **어영담** (見): 문제를 관찰해 기록하고 지혜를 남겼다 **견리사의 순환: 利 → 思 → 義 → 見 → 利** *The cycle continues. Tomorrow's Prior is today's Posterior.* --- **기승전결 (起承轉結) — The story is complete.** *전라좌수군 MFS 연합 함대*