Universal Goal Analysis v4: Leverage Analysis & Communication

Input: $ARGUMENTS

Core Principles

1. Leverage is not importance. The most important requirement is often not the highest-leverage one. Leverage means: closing THIS gap makes OTHER gaps easier to close. A requirement that unblocks three other requirements has more leverage than a requirement that is merely critical.

2. Communication is strategy, not afterthought. Most goal failures are not analytical failures — they are communication failures. The right people didn’t know, didn’t agree, or didn’t act. Communication planning is a first-class analysis step, not a final checkbox.

3. Stakeholder mapping precedes strategy. Before deciding HOW to pursue a goal, identify WHO is affected. People who are surprised by your strategy will oppose it even if it’s optimal. People who are consulted will support it even if it’s imperfect.

4. Opposition is data, not obstruction. When someone opposes your goal, they have information you lack. Their objection reveals a constraint, risk, or value you haven’t accounted for. Dismissing opposition is discarding intelligence.

5. Visible progress compounds. A goal with visible milestones attracts resources. A goal with invisible progress starves. Part of leverage analysis is identifying which actions produce visible evidence of progress.

Phase 1: Goal and Stakeholder Registration

[A] GOAL: [stated goal]
[B] STAKEHOLDER_MAP:

Step 1: List every person or group affected by this goal
Step 2: For each, classify:
    - ROLE: [decision-maker / executor / affected-party / blocker / resource-holder]
    - STANCE: [supportive / neutral / opposed / unknown]
    - POWER: [can block? Y/N] [can accelerate? Y/N]
    - INFORMATION: [what do they know that you don't?]

| Stakeholder | Role | Stance | Can Block | Can Accelerate | Key Info They Hold |
|-------------|------|--------|-----------|----------------|-------------------|
| [name/group] | | | | | |

Phase 2: Leverage Analysis

Sub-procedure — Requirement Leverage Scoring:

[C] REQUIREMENTS: [list from goal decomposition]

Step 1: For each requirement, count:
    - UNBLOCK_COUNT: How many other requirements become easier if this one is met?
    - COST: How much effort/time/money to close this requirement?
    - VISIBILITY: Does closing this produce visible evidence of progress? [Y/N]

Step 2: Calculate leverage score:
    LEVERAGE = (UNBLOCK_COUNT × 3) + (VISIBILITY × 2) - (COST × 1)

Step 3: Rank by leverage score

[D] LEVERAGE_RANKING:
| Requirement | Unblocks | Cost | Visible | Leverage Score |
|-------------|----------|------|---------|----------------|
| [req] | [N] | [H/M/L→3/2/1] | [Y/N→2/0] | [score] |

[E] LEVERAGE_POINTS:
    1. [highest leverage] — because: [why this unblocks the most]
    2. [second highest] — because: [why]
    3. [third highest] — because: [why]

Phase 3: Communication Planning

[F] COMMUNICATION_MATRIX:

For each stakeholder from Phase 1:

Step 1: What do they need to KNOW? (information)
Step 2: What do they need to BELIEVE? (framing)
Step 3: What do they need to DO? (action)
Step 4: WHEN do they need to know it? (timing — before/during/after key actions)
Step 5: HOW should they be told? (channel — meeting/email/demo/report)

| Stakeholder | Must Know | Must Believe | Must Do | When | How |
|-------------|-----------|-------------|---------|------|-----|
| [name] | | | | | |

[G] COMMUNICATION_SEQUENCE:
Step 1: Order communications by dependency
    - Who must be told first because their reaction affects how you tell others?
    - Who must be told before execution begins?
    - Who can be told after the fact?
Step 2: Identify critical conversations (high-power + opposed/unknown stance)
Step 3: For each critical conversation, prepare:
    - Their likely concern: [what]
    - Your response: [what]
    - What you need from them: [what]
    - Fallback if they refuse: [what]

Phase 4: Opposition Analysis

[H] OPPOSITION_MAP:

For each stakeholder with stance = opposed or unknown:

Step 1: What is their objection? (stated or inferred)
Step 2: Is the objection valid? [Y/partially/N]
Step 3: What information does their objection reveal?
Step 4: Can the strategy be modified to address their concern without sacrificing the goal?
Step 5: If not modifiable, what is the cost of overriding their objection?

[I] OPPOSITION_INTEGRATION:
    VALID_OBJECTIONS_INCORPORATED: [list — these improve the strategy]
    OBJECTIONS_ACKNOWLEDGED_NOT_INCORPORATED: [list — with rationale]
    OBJECTIONS_OVERRIDDEN: [list — with cost of override]

Phase 5: Integrated Strategy

[J] STRATEGY:
    LEVERAGE_FIRST_ACTIONS:
        1. [highest-leverage action] — stakeholder impact: [who needs to know]
        2. [second action] — stakeholder impact: [who]
        3. [third action] — stakeholder impact: [who]

    COMMUNICATION_TIMELINE:
        Before starting: Tell [who] [what] via [how]
        After action 1: Tell [who] [what] via [how]
        After action 2: Tell [who] [what] via [how]
        On completion: Tell [who] [what] via [how]

    VISIBILITY_PLAN:
        Milestone 1: [what] — visible to: [who] — when: [date/condition]
        Milestone 2: [what] — visible to: [who] — when: [date/condition]

Phase 6: Report

UGA v4 LEVERAGE & COMMUNICATION ANALYSIS:
Goal: [goal]

Stakeholders: [N] identified
  Supportive: [list] | Opposed: [list] | Unknown: [list]

Top leverage points:
1. [requirement] — leverage score: [X] — unblocks [N] others
2. [requirement] — leverage score: [X]
3. [requirement] — leverage score: [X]

Critical communications:
1. [who] — tell [what] — before [when] — via [how]
2. [who] — tell [what] — before [when] — via [how]

Opposition integrated: [N] valid objections incorporated
Overridden: [N] — cost: [what]

First action: [highest-leverage action with communication attached]

→ INVOKE: /uga $ARGUMENTS (for full analysis incorporating leverage and communication findings)

Failure Modes

Depth Scaling

Default: 2x. These are floors.

Pre-Completion Checklist

• All stakeholders identified with role, stance, and power
• Leverage scores calculated with unblock counts
• Top 3 leverage points identified with rationale
• Communication matrix completed for all stakeholders
• Critical conversations prepared (concern/response/need/fallback)
• Opposition analyzed and valid objections incorporated
• Visibility plan has milestones in first 25% of timeline
• First action includes both the leverage move and its communication

Integration

• Consolidated into: /uga (which uses v4’s leverage in Step 3 and communication in Step 7)
• Use standalone when: Stakeholder dynamics are the primary challenge
• Routes to: /uga (full analysis), /sta (stakeholder analysis)
• Invoked by: Users facing political/organizational complexity
• Differs from /uga: /uga runs all 17 steps; ugav4 focuses on leverage and communication
• Differs from /ugav2: ugav2 focuses on fact-yielding questions
• Differs from /ugav3: ugav3 focuses on procedural decomposition