# BMad Brainstorming Catalog — Deep Analysis

> Analysis of the brainstorming library (`assets/brain-methods.csv`) and the selection
> experience (`assets/brain-selector.html`, generated by `scripts/brain.py`). Companion
> data: `method-matrix.csv` (every method tagged on 4 axes).
>
> **Status (implemented, uncommitted for review):** CSV extended with `provenance` /
> `good_for` / `audience` columns; 8 researched `classic` methods added (108 total);
> `brain.py` now renders a "Proven & Professional" lead group, super-group ordering, a
> "Great for" goal filter, and a per-category "Invent a … technique" card; convergence
> shipped as `references/converge.md` (diverge → converge → finalize) and wired into
> `SKILL.md`. Sections below are the rationale.

---

## 1. TL;DR

The catalog is strong, distinctive, and well-built. The opportunities are not "more methods" so much as **navigation and intent**:

1. **The selector sorts categories alphabetically.** There is no ordering/grouping layer, so the well-known professional methods (SCAMPER, Six Hats, Five Whys, etc.) are scattered across four categories and buried below `Absurdist` and `Biomimetic`. Enterprise users meet whimsy before they meet anything they recognize. → **Add a grouping + ordering layer; lead with a "Proven & Professional" group.**
2. **Nothing connects the user's stated goal to technique choice.** The skill asks for the goal up front but then offers an alphabetical wall. The single highest-value addition is a **goal → technique affinity layer** so "I'm adding a feature to a brownfield app" surfaces a different short-list than "planning a sabbatical."
3. **The catalog is 100% divergent (generative).** There is essentially no *convergence* (prioritize / cluster / decide). This is partly a sound principle and partly a real gap — see §5.
4. **Real overlap exists**, but it's mostly "same cognitive move, different costume." Four mechanisms (perspective-shift, constraint, analogy, inversion) account for ~60 of 100 methods; sensory, questioning, systems, and time-shift are comparatively thin.
5. **Descriptions should stay terse** — the brevity is correct. Only two targeted fixes are warranted: the `collaborative` category silently assumes multiple humans, and ~10 "vibe-only" methods lack an output anchor.
6. **Per-category "invent on the fly" is a good idea** — but implement it as a generated synthetic card per section, not 13 near-duplicate CSV rows.

---

## 2. Method — how this was analyzed

Each of the 100 methods was tagged on **four independent axes** (see `method-matrix.csv`). Category alone only captures *aesthetic/mechanism*; these four axes are what expose grouping, overlap, gaps, and the goal-routing opportunity.

| Axis | Values | Answers |
|---|---|---|
| **Provenance** | `classic` · `signature` · `playful` | What goes in the enterprise "proven" group? |
| **Mechanism** (primary + secondary) | inversion · analogy · perspective · constraint · decomposition · time-shift · systems · sensory · questioning · combination · provocation · convergence | Where is the catalog redundant vs thin? |
| **Goal affinity** (multi) | feature · novel · personal · strategy · planning · diagnosis · unstuck | Given the user's goal, what should we recommend? |
| **Audience** | solo · group · either | What breaks in a 1:1 user+LLM session? |

---

## 3. Findings

### 3a. Provenance — the "proven & professional" set exists, but is scattered

The methods an innovation consultant or enterprise facilitator would recognize by name are spread across `structured`, `deep`, `creative`, and `collaborative`. The **canonical core (~22)**:

> SCAMPER · Six Thinking Hats · Mind Mapping · Lotus Blossom · Crazy 8s · Disney Method ·
> Starbursting · Morphological Analysis · Five Whys · Laddering · Causal Loop Mapping ·
> First Principles · Reverse Brainstorming · Assumption Reversal · Worst Possible Idea ·
> Provocation (PO) · Question Storming · Brainwriting/Round Robin · Yes-And · Random Stimulation ·
> Role Playing · Analogical Thinking

A second tier is *recognizable-adjacent* (Concept Blending, Forced Relationships, Decision Tree, Solution Matrix, Failure Analysis/pre-mortem, Devil's Advocate, 1000x Budget). Everything else is `signature` (BMad-original, serious) or `playful` (the delight layer — `wild`, `absurdist`, `theatrical`, much of `quantum`/`cultural`).

**Recommendation — lead with "Proven & Professional."** Three ways to implement (pick in review):

- **Option A — Tag + generated lead section (recommended).** Add a `provenance` column to the CSV. `brain.py` renders a synthetic **"Proven & Professional"** section *first* (pulling all `classic`-tagged methods, cross-category), then the existing categories grouped and ordered (see §7). A method keeps its home category and also appears in the lead group. Pro: zero loss of mechanism categorization; enterprise sees credibility first. Con: those ~22 methods appear twice on the browse page (arguably fine — or filter them out of their home category).
- **Option B — New `classic` category.** Move the ~22 into a single first category. Pro: simplest. Con: destroys the mechanism grouping (SCAMPER is *also* structured; Five Whys is *also* deep), and the category becomes a grab-bag.
- **Option C — Two-level groups only, no provenance tag.** Reorder the 13 categories into super-groups (§7) so "serious" comes first, but don't pull classics out. Pro: cleanest data model. Con: doesn't actually cluster the *named* methods — they stay scattered within their categories.

My pick: **A.** It satisfies "professional methods grouped and shown first" literally, without flattening the taxonomy that makes the rest of the catalog shine.

### 3b. Mechanism — the catalog has four over-served "spines"

Primary-mechanism distribution across the 100:

| Mechanism | ~count | Read |
|---|---|---|
| **perspective-shift** | ~18 | Over-served. Role Playing, Six Hats, Persona, Alien, Ancestor Council, Inner Child, Future Self, Drunk Uncle, Golden Retriever, Infomercial… all "adopt another viewpoint," differentiated only by *who*. |
| **constraint** | ~16 | Over-served. What If, the entire `constraint` category, 1000x, Post-Scarcity, Parallel Universe, Zombie, Quantum Tunneling, Permission Giving… all "add/remove/exaggerate a limit." |
| **analogy / transfer** | ~12 | Healthy. Analogical, Metaphor, Cross-Pollination, Trait Transfer, Nature's Solutions, Fusion Cuisine, Proverb, Random Stimulation. |
| **inversion** | ~11 | Healthy but clustered. Reverse, Assumption Reversal, Worst Idea, Anti-Solution, Failure Analysis, Devil's Advocate, Cursed Genie, Villain's Monologue, Trickster. |
| **combination** | ~9 | Fine. |
| **decomposition** | ~9 | Fine. |
| **systems / emergence** | ~7 | Thin-ish (concentrated in `quantum`/`biomimetic`). |
| **time-shift** | ~6 | Thin. |
| **questioning** | ~5 | Thin. |
| **sensory / intuitive** | ~5 | Thin (all in `introspective_delight`). |
| **convergence** | ~1 | **Effectively absent** (only Superposition Collapse). See §5. |

**Takeaway:** the redundancy is not a defect to delete — the *costume* (a villain's monologue vs. a courtroom vs. "make it worse") is exactly what makes a 30th inversion technique feel fresh to a user. But a curator should know the catalog leans hard on perspective + constraint, and that **convergence is the one genuinely empty cell.** New methods (§6) should target the thin cells, not the spines.

### 3c. Goal affinity — the headline missing capability

`SKILL.md` already opens with *"what are we brainstorming, and what's the goal?"* — but that goal never routes technique selection. Mapping the matrix's `goal_affinity` tags gives a ready recommendation table. This is what powers "AI picks N" intelligently and what an enterprise user wants:

| Goal | Strong default techniques (lead picks **bold**) |
|---|---|
| **Build a feature** (greenfield/brownfield) | **First Principles**, **SCAMPER**, **Morphological Analysis**, Crazy 8s, Solution Matrix, Reverse Brainstorming, One Feature Only, Ship in 60 Minutes, Chaos Engineering, Cursed Genie (edge cases), Persona Journey, *+ new: Job to Be Done, Follow the Anomaly* |
| **Novel concept / new product** | **Concept Blending**, **Cross-Pollination**, **Forced Relationships**, What If, Trait Transfer, Nature's Solutions, Fusion Cuisine, Emerging Tech Collision, Crank the Dial to 11, Quantum Tunneling |
| **Personal / life decision** | **Future Self Interview**, **Values Archaeology**, **Laddering**, Six Hats, Ancestor Council, Proverb Mining, Mythic Frameworks, the `introspective_delight` set, *+ new: Build on What Works* |
| **Strategy / positioning** | **Six Thinking Hats**, **Failure Analysis** (pre-mortem), Field Lines, Ecosystem Thinking, Utopia vs Dystopia, 1000x Budget, Disney Method, Relativity Frame Shift, Infomercial at 3AM, Predator & Prey |
| **Concrete planning** (event/project) | **Mind Mapping**, **Lotus Blossom**, Morphological Analysis, Decision Tree, Six Hats, $0 Mandate, Constraint Roulette, Time Horizon Ladder |
| **Root-cause / diagnosis** | **Five Whys**, **Causal Loop Mapping**, Failure Analysis, Constraint Mapping, Question Storming, Starbursting, Anti-Solution, Alien Anthropologist |
| **Get unstuck / break fixation** | **Random Stimulation**, **Provocation**, **Worst Possible Idea**, Crank the Dial to 11, Constraint Roulette, Three Rounds of Stupid, Drunk History, most of `wild`/`absurdist`/`theatrical` |

**Recommendation:** persist this as machine-readable affinity (a `goals` column on the CSV, sourced from `method-matrix.csv`), then (1) have the skill recommend a batch from the up-front goal, and (2) let the composer page filter/highlight "great for: [your goal]." This is the single change that most improves both enterprise and casual use.

### 3d. Audience — the `collaborative` category quietly assumes a room of people

5 of the 8 `collaborative` methods (Round Robin, Relay Race, Hot Potato, Fold the Paper, Steal & Upgrade) are written for *multiple humans passing artifacts*. In the default 1:1 user+LLM session they don't translate without the coach silently reinterpreting them. This is the one place the catalog can mislead. Options: tag `audience`, and either (a) add a one-clause solo adaptation to each, or (b) have the skill note "this one shines with a group" when picked solo. Low effort, removes the only real footgun.

### 3e. Description anchoring — keep terse, fix ~12 specifically

The deliberate brevity is **right** — the gist + a creative LLM beats over-specification, and it matches the catalog's house style. Do **not** bulk-expand. Two surgical passes only:

1. **Group-dependent `collaborative` methods** (§3d) — add a short solo-mode clause or an audience tag.
2. **~10 "vibe-only" methods** where the *evocation is great but the output is ambiguous*, so different LLM runs would diverge wildly: e.g. **Field Lines**, **Observer Effect**, **Guerrilla Gardening Ideas**, **Emergent Thinking**, **Entanglement Thinking**, **Elemental Forces**. A tiny "…so that ___" outcome clause anchors the deliverable without killing the brevity. Example: *Guerrilla Gardening Ideas* → add "…**so you surface where an unsanctioned, low-visibility pilot could prove the idea before anyone can veto it**."

Everything crisp (Five Whys, SCAMPER, First Principles, Crazy 8s) stays untouched.

---

## 4. Quick wins vs structural changes

| Change | Effort | Impact | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Goal→technique affinity (`goals` column + recommendation) | Med | **High** | structural |
| "Proven & Professional" lead group + category ordering | Med | **High** (enterprise) | structural |
| Per-category "invent in the spirit" card (§6) | Low | Med | quick win |
| Convergence mini-set (§5) | Low–Med | Med–High | structural (philosophy) |
| `audience` tag + collaborative fix (§3d) | Low | Med | quick win |
| ~12 description anchors (§3e) | Low | Low–Med | quick win |
| New gap-filling methods (§6) | Low | Med | additive |

---

## 5. Divergent vs convergent — the answer, and a recommendation

**What it is.** Divergent = generate (quantity, novelty, breadth). Convergent = evaluate, cluster, prioritize, decide. A complete creative process needs both (cf. the Double Diamond, Osborn-Parnes CPS): diverge wide, *then* converge to a choice.

**Where the catalog stands.** All 100 methods are divergent. `SKILL.md` explicitly enforces divergence ("resist concluding… the urge to organize is the enemy of divergence"), and the only convergent-flavored technique is Quantum → *Superposition Collapse*. Synthesis is deferred entirely to `references/finalize.md` at wrap-up.

**Is that a mistake?** Mostly a *good instinct taken to a defensible extreme.* Separating generation from judgment is the foundational brainstorming rule — premature convergence is the #1 killer of ideas, so a divergence-pure generator is legitimate. But the consequence is that the user has **no technique to pick when they're ready to narrow** — they hit "100 ideas" and the tool's stance is "keep going," with only the wrap-up doing light synthesis. For project/feature/life-decision work especially, people *do* want to land.

**Recommendation — add a small, fenced convergence set, never mixed into the divergent flow.** Keep divergence pure during generation; offer convergence only at wrap-up or on explicit request ("okay, help me narrow"). Concretely: a new `converge` category (4 methods, §6), tagged `mechanism=convergence`, surfaced by `finalize.md` / on demand — not in the default 3–4 sweet-spot batch. This completes the loop while honoring the separate-generation-from-judgment principle. **This is a philosophy decision for you to confirm** — it's the one recommendation that changes what the skill *is*, not just what's in the library.

---

## 6. Proposed new methods (fill the thin cells)

Targeting the under-served mechanisms (§3b), the empty convergence cell (§5), and the goal gaps (§3c). CSV-style (`category, name, description`) so they can drop straight in:

**Feature/product & enterprise gaps (mechanism: questioning/decomposition):**
- `structured, Job to Be Done, "Ask what the user is really hiring this to do; brainstorm around that underlying job, not the feature you assumed"`
- `structured, Empathy Map, "Map what the user says, thinks, does, and feels around the problem; mine each quadrant for the unmet need hiding there"`
- `deep, Follow the Anomaly, "Start from one surprising number or outlier and ideate only from what would explain it or exploit it"`

**Strengths-based (the missing positive frame — Appreciative Inquiry is a glaring classic-tier omission):**
- `deep, Build on What Works, "Name what's already succeeding and why, then ideate how to amplify and extend it instead of fixing what's broken"`

**Convergence set (new `converge` category — only if §5 is adopted):**
- `converge, Impact Effort Triage, "Plot every idea by impact against effort; harvest the high-impact, low-effort quadrant first and quarantine the rest"`
- `converge, Forced Ranking, "Make the ideas fight: each must beat another to survive to a ranked top-N, no ties allowed"`
- `converge, NUF Test, "Score each idea New, Useful, Feasible 1-10; the totals expose the quiet winners and the dazzling dead-ends"`
- `converge, Affinity Clustering, "Group the raw ideas into themes, name each cluster, then ideate fresh at the theme level"`

(Optional, lower priority: `structured, Storyboarding` for sequenced/experience ideation.)

---

## 7. Category roster & ordering recommendations

**Ordering (replace alphabetical with a deliberate progression):** add a `CATEGORY_ORDER` + `GROUP` map in `brain.py` (mirroring the existing `_HUES` map — derived for the shipped set, alphabetical fallback for custom catalogs). Proposed super-groups, in order:

1. **Proven & Professional** — the `classic` lead section (§3a, Option A)
2. **Structured & Analytical** — structured, deep
3. **Creative & Generative** — creative, biomimetic, cultural, speculative_future, quantum
4. **Wild & Playful** — wild, absurdist, theatrical, constraint
5. **Introspective & Personal** — introspective_delight, collaborative
6. **Decide & Converge** — converge *(if §5 adopted)*

**Roster notes:**
- No category should be deleted. The overlap (§3b) is intentional costume variety.
- `quantum` and `cultural` are the most abstract/uneven — a couple of their members (Field Lines, Observer Effect) are the vaguest in the whole set; anchor per §3e rather than cut.
- `constraint` is excellent and tight — leave as is.

---

## 8. Per-category "invent in the spirit of this category"

You asked whether each category should also offer an on-the-fly invented technique in its own spirit. **Yes — but don't add 13 near-duplicate rows to the CSV.** The composer already has a global **Invent N** stepper, and `brain.py` already generates section markup from the catalog. So:

> Have `brain.py` append **one synthetic card per category section** — a dashed "✨ Invent a *{Category}* technique" card. Selecting it emits a paste directive like `invent 1 (in the spirit of {category})`, reused by the existing Inventive-Flow plumbing in `SKILL.md` (which already handles `invent N` and offering keepers to `additional_techniques`).

Benefits: CSV stays a clean library of *real* techniques; behavior is consistent everywhere; it leverages plumbing that already exists; and it gives the user the "surprise me, but on-theme" affordance per category without library bloat.

---

## 9. Open decisions for BMad (in priority order)

1. **Goal-affinity layer** — adopt the `goals` column + recommendation routing? (Highest impact.)
2. **Proven & Professional grouping** — Option A (tag + generated lead section, recommended), B, or C? (§3a)
3. **Convergence** — add the fenced `converge` set, or stay divergence-pure? (§5 — philosophy decision.)
4. **New methods** — approve the §6 set? Which ones?
5. **Per-category invent card** — approve the generated-card approach? (§8)
6. **Description anchoring** — approve the targeted ~12 (incl. collaborative fix), keep everything else terse? (§3e)
7. **Category ordering / super-groups** — adopt §7?

Once you mark these, the implementation is: extend the CSV schema (`provenance`, `good_for`, `audience` columns — additive, backward-compatible with `brain.py`'s `DictReader`), add the ordering/grouping + synthetic-card logic to `brain.py`, regenerate `brain-selector.html`, update the relevant `SKILL.md` / `references/*` flow, and run `scripts/tests/`.

---

## 10. Revised convergence architecture (per BMad direction)

**Decision locked:** convergence is **not** a CSV category of selectable cards. It's a **reference phase**, mirroring `references/finalize.md`. The catalog stays a pure *divergent* library; convergence lives in `references/converge.md`.

**Flow:** diverge (pick & run techniques) → **converge** (`references/converge.md`, on demand or once divergence is spent) → **finalize** (`references/finalize.md`, last). The coach already does ad-hoc convergence implicitly; this makes it an explicit, repeatable phase, and `converge.md` ends by instructing the coach to load `finalize.md` to synthesize and produce artifacts.

`references/converge.md` contents — a tight set of real, established convergence moves (the coach picks what fits, never dumps a menu):

- **Affinity Clustering (KJ method)** — group the raw ideas into themes, name each cluster, surface the through-line.
- **Dot Voting / Multivoting** — heat-map the favorites; discuss why the hot spots are hot.
- **Impact–Effort Matrix** — plot each idea on impact vs effort; harvest high-impact/low-effort first.
- **NUF Test** — score New, Useful, Feasible (1–10 each); totals expose quiet winners and dazzling dead-ends.
- **PMI (Plus / Minus / Interesting)** — de Bono's fast evaluator for pressure-testing a single strong candidate.
- *(optional)* **MoSCoW** (Must/Should/Could/Won't) for product scoping; **Nominal Group Technique** when it's genuinely a group.

`SKILL.md` change: at the point where a divergent batch is spent, offer "keep diverging / converge & decide / wrap up" — "converge & decide" loads `converge.md`; wrap-up still goes to `finalize.md`.

## 11. Researched gap-filling additions (real, established methods)

Web-researched (sources below), chosen to fill the **thin mechanism cells** (questioning, diagnosis, time-shift, empathy) — *not* the over-served spines — and all `classic`-tier, so they also strengthen the "Proven & Professional" group. CSV-style, ready to drop in:

| Category | Technique | Gist (house style) | Fills |
|---|---|---|---|
| structured | **How Might We** | "Reframe the problem as a batch of 'How might we…' opportunity questions first, then ideate against the sharpest one" | questioning / problem-framing (design-thinking staple, currently absent) |
| deep | **TRIZ Contradiction** | "Name the core contradiction — what only improves by making something else worse — then brainstorm ways to win both instead of trading off" | engineering/feature (no systematic technical method today) |
| deep | **Fishbone Diagram** | "Branch the problem's spine into cause categories — people, process, tools, environment — and mine each bone for contributing causes" | diagnosis (named classic complementing Five Whys / Causal Loop) |
| structured | **Backcasting** | "Fix the finished future in vivid detail, then work backward step by step to the one move you'd have to make first" | strategy/planning time-shift (serious counterpart to playful future methods) |
| speculative_future | **Scenario Cross** | "Pick two high-impact uncertainties, cross them into four futures, and ideate the move that wins in every one" | strategy (2×2 scenario planning — the serious sibling of the playful speculative set) |
| structured | **Job to Be Done** | "Ask what the user is really hiring this to do, then ideate around that underlying job, not the feature you assumed" | feature/empathy (enterprise staple) |
| structured | **Empathy Map** | "Map what the user says, thinks, does, and feels around the problem; mine each quadrant for the unmet need" | empathy/feature |
| deep | **Build on What Works** | "Name what's already succeeding and why, then ideate how to amplify and extend it instead of fixing what's broken" | strengths-based (Appreciative Inquiry — a glaring classic-tier omission) |

Deliberately **not** added (would deepen an already over-served spine or duplicate): Synectics (≈ analogy/metaphor), SWOT (analysis, not ideation), Rolestorming (≈ Role Playing), Brainwalking/Braindumping (≈ Brainwriting), Pre-mortem (≈ Failure Analysis).

**Sources:** [IxDF — essential ideation techniques](https://ixdf.org/literature/article/introduction-to-the-essential-ideation-techniques-which-are-the-heart-of-design-thinking) · [Quality Magazine — TRIZ](https://www.qualitymag.com/articles/98566-triz-the-backbone-of-innovation-and-problem-solving) · [ASQ — Fishbone/Ishikawa](https://asq.org/quality-resources/fishbone) · [Futures Platform — 2×2 scenario matrix](https://www.futuresplatform.com/blog/2x2-scenario-planning-matrix-guideline) · [NN/g — Dot Voting](https://www.nngroup.com/articles/dot-voting/) · [Quality Gurus — divergent vs convergent](https://www.qualitygurus.com/divergent-vs-convergent-thinking/)