Perspective Rotation Pattern

Content

{
  "problem": "Agents tasked with evaluating a decision, plan, or argument default to a single analytical perspective, producing blind spots that a human expert from a different discipline would immediately identify.",
  "examples": [
    "Architecture decisions evaluated by security engineer, performance engineer, and product manager",
    "Business strategy evaluated from customer, competitor, and regulator viewpoints",
    "Research findings reviewed from methodology, statistics, and domain expert angles"
  ],
  "solution": "Systematically rotate the agent through 3–5 domain perspectives on the same question, synthesizing insights that only emerge from the intersection of multiple viewpoints.",
  "anti_patterns": [
    "Fake rotation where all perspectives reach same conclusion — indicates generic prompting rather than genuine perspective shift",
    "Too many perspectives (>7) causes cognitive overload and diluted synthesis",
    "Skipping synthesis step — the value is in the intersection, not the individual perspectives"
  ],
  "implementation_steps": [
    "Define 3–5 relevant domain perspectives for the question type (e.g., for product decision: engineering, user experience, business model, security, regulatory)",
    "For each perspective, generate an isolated analysis: \"Analyze this from the perspective of a [role] who cares most about [primary_concern]\"",
    "After all perspectives complete, run synthesis pass: identify conflicts between perspectives, identify blind spots in original framing, surface non-obvious considerations",
    "Final output must include: per-perspective summary, cross-perspective conflicts, and synthesis recommendation that explicitly weights perspectives",
    "Document which perspectives were applied so future agents can identify missing viewpoints"
  ]
}