s4h-aesthetic-simplicity-analysis

Aesthetic Simplicity Analysis

Simplicity is not minimalism for its own sake — it is the clarity that emerges when everything that obscures the essence has been removed. Most things accumulate layers: additions made under pressure, elements that hedge against edge cases, features added to satisfy someone who asked. The result is a thing that does everything adequately and nothing powerfully. This skill finds the core and tests what must stay, what can go, and what removal would actually cost.

---

Your Process

Step 1: State the Thing and Its Purpose What is it, and what is it supposed to do? Name the object — a strategy, product, message, design, process, argument — and state its job in one sentence. If the purpose isn't clear, clarifying it is the first act of simplification.

Framing check: Confirm the specific subject before continuing. State what you've identified — the actual object being analyzed and its intended purpose — in one sentence, then use AskUserQuestion:

• Question: "I'm reading this as: [your one-sentence framing of the specific object and its purpose]. Is that right?"
• Header: "Framing"
• Options:
  • Yes — proceed — framing is correct
  • Adjust — one element is off; user will correct it before you continue
  • Reframe — different situation than read; incorporate the correction before proceeding

Step 2: Find the Essence If you could keep only one thing — one idea, one element, one mechanism — and it had to carry the entire weight of the purpose, what would it be? State this as one sentence. This is the essence. Everything else in the analysis flows from whether it serves this or doesn't.

Step 3: Classify Each Element Go through every component or layer. Assign each one of three classifications:

• Essence — it is the core, or it expresses the core directly and powerfully
• Supporting the essence — it helps the core do its job; without it the essence is harder to access or less effective
• Obscuring the essence — it dilutes the core, competes with it for attention, or adds noise that the reader or user must filter out to reach what matters

Step 4: Remove and Reduce Eliminate everything classified as obscuring. Reduce everything classified as supporting to the minimum required for the essence to land clearly. Each reduction is a decision — name what it costs and why that cost is acceptable.

Step 5: Test with What Remains With the reduced set: can the essence be felt clearly? Does the version with less do the original job? If not, something was misclassified — a supporting element was actually doing more work than was visible. Revise and keep it.

Step 6: Name What Was Lost What was removed, and what did each removal cost? Some removals are free — the element was noise that looked like signal. Some involve real trade-offs — the removed element served a secondary purpose worth acknowledging even if not worth keeping.

---

Human Check-in

Before proceeding, use the AskUserQuestion tool. State your interpretation of the situation in 1–2 sentences — what is being analyzed and what the core question is — then ask:

• Question: "My read: [your 1–2 sentence interpretation]. How do you want to proceed?"
• Header: "Scope"
• Options:
  • Full analysis — Complete all steps, reasoning shown throughout
  • Key findings only — Bottom-line output, skip step-by-step detail
  • Removals only — What can be cut while preserving what matters
  • Reframe — The read is off; correct it and the analysis will follow the corrected framing

Proceed based on their selection. If the user reframes, incorporate the correction before running any analysis.

Output Format

Essence: [one sentence — the irreducible core of what this thing is and does]

Element Classification

Element	Classification	Rationale
[component]	[essence / supporting / obscuring]	[why — what it does for the core]

Simplified Version: [what remains after removal and reduction]

What Was Lost

Removed Element	What It Did	Acceptable Loss?
[element]	[secondary function]	[yes — free / yes — acceptable trade-off / no — reclassify]

Verdict: Does the simplified version deliver the essence clearly? [yes / partial — state what's still competing / no — revise classification]

---

Notes

The goal is not the shortest version but the clearest. A long thing can be simple if every part serves the essence. A short thing can be incoherent if it's just been cut without finding the core first. Simplicity is achieved when adding anything would be wrong, and removing anything would be a loss.

---

What's Next

After delivering this output, use AskUserQuestion to offer the next move:

• Question: "Simplicity analysed. What's next?"
• Header: "Next"
• Options:
  • /s4h-aesthetic-elegance-testing — Test the elegance of the simplified version
  • /s4h-writing-line-editing — Edit for the simplicity findings
  • /s4h-aesthetic-coherence-check — Check the simplified version still coheres
  • Done — Wrap up and synthesise what we have so far