Multidimensional Feasibility: Think Tank of 7 Sages

Validates approved modernization scenarios with postdoctoral-level research rigor across 7 dimensions. The Think Tank operates as a council of 7 specialized researchers — each bringing deep expertise in their dimension — who deliberate collectively to produce a feasibility verdict that is evidence-based, not opinion-based.

This is NOT a rubber stamp. This is the last line of defense before committing resources.

Guiding Principle

If there is no evidence, there is no feasibility. If there is no feasibility, there is no roadmap.

Every claim must carry evidence classified by strength:

• Level 1 (Strongest): [CÓDIGO], [CONFIG], [BENCHMARK] — verifiable, reproducible
• Level 2: [DOC], [VENDOR-DOC], [ACADEMIC] — documented, cited
• Level 3: [STAKEHOLDER] — reported by identifiable person
• Level 4 (Weakest): [INFERENCIA] — deduced from patterns
• Level 5 (Requires Validation): [SUPUESTO] — assumed, requires spike/PoC

Think Tank Philosophy

1. 7 dimensions are indivisible. A technically brilliant project that ignores technology maturity or infrastructure limits fails just the same. Partial feasibility is false feasibility.
2. Dissent is value, not noise. Minority positions are documented with the same rigor as majority positions. Often, the dissenting sage is right.
3. The verdict is collective. Requires agreement from 5 out of 7 sages minimum. The conductor facilitates, does not vote.
4. Cross-validation is mandatory. Each finding reviewed by at least 2 sages from other dimensions. Prevents silos and blind spots.
5. Unanimous risk = BLOCKER. If all 7 sages identify the same risk, it is a showstopper until validated.

The 7 Think Tank Dimensions

D1: Research & Technology Readiness (research-scientist)

• Do the technical claims have documented academic or industrial backing?
• What is the TRL (Technology Readiness Level) of each proposed component?
• Do case studies of similar successful migrations exist?
• What does the literature say about the proposed patterns at the required scale?
• For claims without evidence: what is the experimental design (spike/PoC) to validate?

D2: Quantitative Validation (data-scientist)

• Do the scenario numbers withstand sensitivity analysis (plus or minus 25%)?
• Are the performance projections statistically credible?
• Are the cited benchmarks comparable (same scale, same domain)?
• Is there optimism bias in the estimates?
• Are the confidence intervals acceptable for the decision?

D3: Systemic Feasibility (systems-theorist)

• Does the proposed architecture as a complex system have undesired emergent behaviors?
• What are the possible failure cascades?
• Are the feedback loops stabilizing or destabilizing?
• Is the team topology compatible with the architecture topology (Conway's Law)?
• Are there tipping points where the system changes behavior?

D4: Technology Maturity (technology-scout)

• Is each proposed technology in an appropriate adoption cycle phase?
• Is the ecosystem (community, releases, corporate backing) healthy?
• What is the vendor lock-in risk and its exit cost?
• Do viable alternatives exist if the chosen technology does not deliver?
• Is the technology trajectory growth, plateau, or decline?

D5: Infrastructure & Hardware (hardware-systems-engineer)

• Do the infrastructure assumptions respect the provider's limits?
• What is the theoretical scaling ceiling before degradation?
• Is the physical latency between regions compatible with the proposed SLAs?
• Is data gravity (where data lives vs. where it is computed) considered?
• Do the cloud provider's service limits and quotas permit the proposed design?

D6: Integration Feasibility (integration-researcher)

• Are the protocols at each integration point compatible (current to proposed)?
• Are the required data transformations viable?
• Is backward compatibility during transition achievable?
• Are there integrations requiring simultaneous cross-team or cross-vendor changes?
• Are the API contracts stable or in flux?

D7: Economic Feasibility (economics-researcher)

• Are the effort estimates consistent with ISBSG benchmarks?
• Have the main cost drivers been identified and quantified?
• Is the learning curve (team ramp-up) included in the estimates?
• Does the compound cost of technical debt justify the investment?
• Does the Monte Carlo cost simulation produce an acceptable range?
• FTE-months ONLY. NEVER prices.

Delivery Structure

S1: Executive Summary

• Verdict, confidence level, top risks, top validations
• 3-5 bullets for the executive (Level 0 progressive disclosure)

S2: Claim Evidence Matrix

Full inventory of claims with evidence strength, cross-validation, and status.

S3: Dimensional Analysis (7 sections)

One section per sage: findings, evidence, risks, score 1-5, mitigations.

S4: Systemic Risk Map

Dependency graph with failure cascades. Conway's Law assessment diagram.

S5: Spike & PoC Catalog

MUST-DO / SHOULD-DO / COULD-DO with measurable success criteria.

S6: Think Tank Verdict

Collective verdict with voting record, conditions, dissenting positions.

S7: Updated Risk Register

Cumulative risk register with Think Tank findings merged.

Think Tank Deliberation Protocol

PHASE 1: INDIVIDUAL ANALYSIS (parallel)
  → Each sage analyzes their dimension independently
  → Produces dimensional report with evidence tags

PHASE 2: CROSS-VALIDATION (round-robin)
  → Each report reviewed by at least 2 sages from other dimensions
  → Contradictions, gaps, and blind spots identified

PHASE 3: PLENARY DELIBERATION
  → Presentation of findings with evidence tags
  → Debate on identified contradictions
  → Identification of consensus vs dissent

PHASE 4: VOTE
  → FEASIBLE / FEASIBLE WITH CONDITIONS / NOT FEASIBLE
  → Requires agreement from at least 5 out of 7
  → Dissent documented with complete rationale

PHASE 5: VERDICT
  → Composite score (weighted average of 7 dimensions)
  → Confidence level based on average evidence strength
  → Mandatory conditions and spikes
  → Recommendation: PROCEED / HOLD / PIVOT

Trade-off Matrix

Decision	Enables	Constrains	When to Use
Full 7-dimension Think Tank	Maximum confidence, postdoc rigor	3-5 days effort	High-investment transformations
4-dimension fast track (D1+D3+D5+D7)	Focused validation	Misses maturity/integration/stats	Medium projects, time pressure
Single-dimension deep dive	Expert-level depth	No systemic view	Targeted validation of specific concern
Paper analysis only	Fastest	Lower confidence	Time-constrained, low-risk projects

When to Use

• After Gate 1 (scenario approval), before Phase 4 (roadmap)
• When investment exceeds 50 FTE-months
• When proposal involves unproven technology at scale
• When stakeholders need "postdoctoral confidence" in feasibility
• When prior projects in similar domain have failed

When NOT to Use

• Express discovery (time constraint overrides depth)
• Pure infrastructure migrations with no architecture change
• Projects under 10 FTE-months (overhead exceeds value)

Edge Cases

Scenario	Response
All 7 sages agree: FEASIBLE	Rare. Document evidence strength. Reduce contingency.
4-3 split vote	Document both positions. Recommend targeted spike for contested dimension.
3 or more sages flag same risk	Automatic BLOCKER. Must-validate before Phase 4.
No codebase access	All D1 claims marked [INFERENCIA]. Increase uncertainty. Recommend code access as condition.
Vendor refuses to share benchmarks	Flag as [VENDOR-DOC: UNAVAILABLE]. Increase risk score for D4.
Conway's Law violation detected	CRITICAL FLAG. Architecture feasible but org structure incompatible. Requires org change or architecture adjustment.

Validation Gate

• 7 dimensional analyses complete with evidence tags
• Cross-validation: each finding reviewed by at least 2 other sages
• Unanimous risks documented as BLOCKERs
• MUST-DO spikes defined with measurable success criteria
• Verdict with agreement from at least 5 out of 7
• Risk register updated with Think Tank findings
• Mermaid diagrams: dependency graph + risk heatmap

Output Format Protocol

Format	Default	Description
markdown	Yes	Rich Markdown + Mermaid diagrams. Token-efficient.
html	On demand	Branded HTML (Design System). Visual impact.
dual	On demand	Both formats.

Output Configuration

• Language: Spanish (Latin American, business register — simple, clear, concise, direct)
• Attribution: Expert committee of the MetodologIA Discovery Framework
• Tagline: "Construido por profesionales, potenciado por la red agéntica de MetodologIA."

Output Artifact

Primary: 05b_Feasibility_ThinkTank_{project}.md

Diagrams (Mermaid)

• Flowchart TD: system dependency graph with failure cascade paths
• QuadrantChart: risk positioning (probability x impact) by dimension

Assumptions & Limits

• Requires approved scenario from Phase 3 (or candidate for pre-approval)
• Cannot replace actual spike/PoC execution — designs the validation, does not execute it
• Economic analysis produces magnitudes and intervals, NEVER prices
• Academic evidence limited to what is searchable — may miss proprietary research

Casos Borde

Caso	Estrategia de Manejo
No codebase access available for D1 (Research & Technology Readiness) validation	Mark all D1 technical claims as [INFERENCIA]; increase uncertainty margins by 30%; add "codebase access" as a mandatory condition in the verdict; recommend code-level spike as MUST-DO
Vendor refuses to share benchmarks or internal documentation for D4 assessment	Flag as [VENDOR-DOC: UNAVAILABLE]; increase D4 risk score by 1 point; recommend independent benchmarking PoC; add vendor transparency as a contractual condition
Think Tank vote results in a 4-3 split (minimum 5 required for verdict)	Document both majority and minority positions with full evidence; recommend targeted spike on the contested dimension(s); schedule re-vote after spike results are available
All 7 sages agree FEASIBLE with high confidence — unanimous positive verdict	Rare case. Verify evidence strength across all dimensions; reduce contingency budget by 10-15%; document as "high confidence" but maintain standard governance gates

Decisiones y Trade-offs

Decision	Alternativa Descartada	Justificacion
Require 5-of-7 sage agreement for a binding verdict	Simple majority (4-of-7) or unanimous (7-of-7)	Simple majority allows too-narrow margins on critical decisions; unanimity is unrealistic for complex multi-dimensional analysis; 5-of-7 ensures strong consensus while allowing productive dissent
Cross-validate every finding with at least 2 sages from other dimensions	Allow each sage to work independently without peer review	Independent analysis creates dimensional silos; cross-validation catches blind spots where one dimension's assumption is another dimension's risk
Document dissenting positions with equal rigor as majority positions	Suppress minority opinions in favor of clean recommendations	Dissenting sages are often the first to detect risks that the majority overlooks; suppressing dissent reduces the value of the multi-dimensional approach
Economic analysis produces FTE-months and magnitude ranges, NEVER prices	Include specific pricing for vendor comparisons	Pricing is volatile, context-dependent, and becomes stale; FTE-months and magnitude ranges provide stable decision inputs that remain valid across geographies and market conditions

Knowledge Graph

graph TD
    subgraph Core["Think Tank of 7 Sages"]
        A["Scenario Intake"] --> B["7-Dimension Analysis"]
        B --> C["Cross-Validation"]
        C --> D["Plenary Deliberation"]
        D --> E["Vote & Verdict"]
    end
    subgraph Dimensions["7 Dimensions"]
        B --> D1["D1: Research & Tech Readiness"]
        B --> D2["D2: Quantitative Validation"]
        B --> D3["D3: Systemic Feasibility"]
        B --> D4["D4: Technology Maturity"]
        B --> D5["D5: Infrastructure & Hardware"]
        B --> D6["D6: Integration Feasibility"]
        B --> D7["D7: Economic Feasibility"]
    end
    subgraph Inputs["Inputs"]
        F["Approved Scenario"] --> A
        G["Prior Phase Artifacts"] --> B
    end
    subgraph Outputs["Outputs"]
        E --> H["Feasibility Verdict"]
        E --> I["Spike/PoC Catalog"]
        E --> J["Updated Risk Register"]
    end
    subgraph Related["Related Skills"]
        K["scenario-analysis"] -.-> F
        L["technology-vigilance"] -.-> D4
        M["solution-roadmap"] -.-> H
    end

Output Templates

Markdown (default)

• Filename: 05b_Feasibility_ThinkTank_{cliente}_{WIP}.md
• Structure: TL;DR > Executive Summary (verdict + confidence) > Claim Evidence Matrix > 7 Dimensional Analysis sections > Systemic Risk Map > Spike/PoC Catalog > Think Tank Verdict with voting record > Updated Risk Register > Mermaid dependency graph + quadrant chart > ghost menu

HTML

• Filename: 05b_Feasibility_ThinkTank_{cliente}_{WIP}.html
• Structure: MetodologIA Design System v4; verdict banner at top with confidence indicator; collapsible dimensional sections; interactive risk heatmap; evidence strength color coding; Mermaid embedded diagrams; print-ready

DOCX (bajo demanda)

• Filename: {fase}_Feasibility_ThinkTank_{cliente}_{WIP}.docx
• Generado via python-docx con MetodologIA Design System v5. Portada con logo y metadatos, TOC automatico, headers/footers con nombre del skill y numeracion, tablas zebra, titulos Poppins navy, cuerpo Montserrat, acentos gold.

XLSX (bajo demanda)

• Filename: {fase}_Feasibility_ThinkTank_{cliente}_{WIP}.xlsx
• Generado via openpyxl con MetodologIA Design System v5. Headers navy con texto blanco Poppins, formato condicional por nivel de evidencia (L1–L5) y veredicto dimensional, auto-filtros en todas las columnas, valores calculados sin formulas. Hojas: Claim Evidence Matrix, 7-Dimension Scores, Risk Register, Spike Catalog.

PPTX (bajo demanda)

• Filename: {fase}_Feasibility_ThinkTank_{cliente}_{WIP}.pptx
• Generado via python-pptx con MetodologIA Design System v5. Slide master navy gradient, titulos Poppins, cuerpo Montserrat, acentos gold. Max 20 slides variante ejecutiva / 30 variante tecnica. Speaker notes con referencias de evidencia [DOC]/[INFERENCIA]/[SUPUESTO].

Evaluacion

Dimension	Peso	Criterio
Trigger Accuracy	10%	Descripcion activa triggers correctos sin falsos positivos
Completeness	25%	Todos los entregables cubren el dominio sin huecos
Clarity	20%	Instrucciones ejecutables sin ambiguedad
Robustness	20%	Maneja edge cases y variantes de input
Efficiency	10%	Proceso no tiene pasos redundantes
Value Density	15%	Cada seccion aporta valor practico directo

Umbral minimo: 7/10 en cada dimension para considerar el skill production-ready.

---

Autor: Javier Montaño | Ultima actualizacion: 15 de marzo de 2026