deep-reading-analyst

Quick Analysis (15min)

• 📋 SCQA - Structure thinking (Situation-Complication-Question-Answer)
• 🔍 5W2H - Completeness check (What, Why, Who, When, Where, How, How much)

Standard Analysis (30min)

• 🎯 Critical Thinking - Argument evaluation
• 🔄 Inversion Thinking - Risk identification

Deep Analysis (60min)

• 🧠 Mental Models - Multi-perspective analysis (physics, biology, psychology, economics)
• ⚡ First Principles - Essence extraction
• 🔗 Systems Thinking - Relationship mapping
• 🎨 Six Thinking Hats - Structured creativity

Research Analysis (120min+)

• 📊 Cross-Source Comparison - Multi-article synthesis

```

User provides content

↓

Ask: Purpose + Depth Level + Preferred Frameworks

↓

┌─────────────────┬─────────────────┬─────────────────┬─────────────────┐

│ Level 1 │ Level 2 │ Level 3 │ Level 4 │

│ Quick │ Standard │ Deep │ Research │

│ 15min │ 30min │ 60min │ 120min+ │

├─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────┤

│ • SCQA │ Level 1 + │ Level 2 + │ Level 3 + │

│ • 5W2H │ • Critical │ • Mental Models │ • Cross-source │

│ • Structure │ • Inversion │ • First Princ. │ • Web search │

│ │ │ • Systems │ • Synthesis │

│ │ │ • Six Hats │ │

└─────────────────┴─────────────────┴─────────────────┴─────────────────┘

```

Ask User (conversationally):

1. "What's your main goal for reading this?"

- Problem-solving / Learning / Writing / Decision-making / Curiosity

1. "How deep do you want to go?"

- Quick (15min) / Standard (30min) / Deep (60min) / Research (120min+)

1. "Any specific frameworks you'd like to use?"

- Suggest based on content type (see Framework Selection Guide below)

Default if no response: Level 2 (Standard mode) with auto-selected frameworks

Framework Selection Guide

Based on content type, auto-suggest:

```markdown

📄 Strategy/Business articles → SCQA + Mental Models + Inversion

📊 Research papers → 5W2H + Critical Thinking + Systems Thinking

💡 How-to guides → SCQA + 5W2H + First Principles

🎯 Opinion pieces → Critical Thinking + Inversion + Six Hats

📈 Case studies → SCQA + Mental Models + Systems Thinking

```

Always start here regardless of depth level.

Phase 2A: Basic Structure

```markdown

📄 Content Type: [Article/Paper/Report/Guide]

⏱️ Estimated reading time: [X minutes]

🎯 Core Thesis: [One sentence]

Structure Overview:

├─ Main Argument 1

│ ├─ Supporting point 1.1

│ └─ Supporting point 1.2

├─ Main Argument 2

└─ Main Argument 3

Key Concepts: [3-5 terms with brief definitions]

```

Phase 2B: SCQA Analysis (Quick Framework)

Load references/scqa_framework.md and apply:

```markdown

S (Situation): [Background/context the article establishes]

C (Complication): [Problem/challenge identified]

Q (Question): [Core question being addressed]

A (Answer): [Main solution/conclusion]

📊 Structure Quality:

• Clarity: [★★★★☆]
• Logic flow: [★★★★★]
• Completeness: [★★★☆☆]

```

Phase 2C: 5W2H Completeness Check (if Level 1+)

Quick scan using references/5w2h_analysis.md:

```markdown

✅ Well-covered: [What, Why, How]

⚠️ Partially covered: [Who, When]

❌ Missing: [Where, How much]

🔴 Critical gaps: [List 1-2 most important missing pieces]

```

Select based on depth level and user preference:

Level 1 (Quick - 15 min)

Core: Structure + SCQA + 5W2H Quick Check

Output:

• SCQA breakdown
• Information gaps (from 5W2H)
• TOP 3 insights
• 1 immediate action item

Level 2 (Standard - 30 min)

Add: Critical Thinking + Inversion

Load and apply:

• references/critical_thinking.md:

- Argument quality assessment

- Logic flaw identification

- Evidence evaluation

- Alternative perspectives

• references/inversion_thinking.md:

- How to ensure failure? (reverse the advice)

- What assumptions if wrong?

- Missing risks

- Pre-mortem analysis

```markdown

Argument Strength: [X/10]

Strengths:

• [Point 1]

Weaknesses:

• [Point 1]

Logical fallacies detected:

• [If any]

🚨 How this could fail:

1. [Failure mode 1] → Mitigation: [...]
2. [Failure mode 2] → Mitigation: [...]

Missing risk factors:

• [Risk 1]

```

Level 3 (Deep - 60 min)

Add: Mental Models + First Principles + Systems + Six Hats

Load and apply:

• references/mental_models.md:

- Select 3-5 relevant models from different disciplines

- Apply each lens to the content

- Identify cross-model insights

• references/first_principles.md:

- Strip to fundamental truths

- Identify core assumptions

- Rebuild understanding from base

• references/systems_thinking.md:

- Map relationships and feedback loops

- Identify leverage points

- See the big picture

• references/six_hats.md:

- White (facts), Red (feelings), Black (caution)

- Yellow (benefits), Green (creativity), Blue (process)

```markdown

Mental Models Applied:

1. [Model 1 from X discipline]

Insight: [...]

1. [Model 2 from Y discipline]

Insight: [...]

1. [Model 3 from Z discipline]

Insight: [...]

Cross-model pattern: [Key insight from combining models]

First Principles Breakdown:

Core assumptions:

1. [Assumption 1] → Valid: [Yes/No/Conditional]
2. [Assumption 2] → Valid: [Yes/No/Conditional]

Fundamental truth: [What remains after stripping assumptions]

Systems Map:

```

[Variable A] ──reinforces──> [Variable B]

↑ |

| |

balances reinforces

| |

└─────────<────────────────┘

Leverage point: [Where small change = big impact]

```

Six Hats Perspective:

🤍 Facts: [Objective data]

❤️ Feelings: [Intuitive response]

🖤 Cautions: [Risks and downsides]

💛 Benefits: [Positive aspects]

💚 Ideas: [Creative alternatives]

💙 Process: [Meta-thinking]

```

Level 4 (Research - 120 min+)

Add: Cross-source comparison via web_search

Use web_search to find 2-3 related sources, then:

• Load references/comparison_matrix.md
• Compare SCQA across sources
• Identify consensus vs. divergence
• Synthesize integrated perspective

```markdown

Source 1: [This article]

S-C-Q-A: [Summary]

Key claim: [...]

Source 2: [Found article]

S-C-Q-A: [Summary]

Key claim: [...]

Source 3: [Found article]

S-C-Q-A: [Summary]

Key claim: [...]

Consensus: [What all agree on]

Divergence: [Where they differ]

Unique value: [What each contributes]

Integrated view: [Your synthesis]

```

Generate based on user goal:

For Problem-Solving:

```markdown

[Extract 2-3 methods from content]

Problem: [User's specific issue]

Relevant insights: [From analysis]

Action steps:

1. [Concrete action with timeline]
2. [Concrete action with timeline]
3. [Concrete action with timeline]

Success metrics: [How to measure]

Potential failure points:

• [Point 1] → Prevent by: [...]
• [Point 2] → Prevent by: [...]

```

For Learning:

```markdown

Core concepts (explained simply):

1. [Concept 1]: [Definition + Example]
2. [Concept 2]: [Definition + Example]

Mental models gained:

• [Model 1]: [How it works]

Connections to prior knowledge:

• [Link to something user already knows]

Fundamental question: [...]

Core principle: [...]

1. [Question to test understanding]
2. [Question to test application]
3. [Question to test evaluation]

```

For Writing Reference:

```markdown

[Structured extraction with page/paragraph numbers]

"[Quote 1]" — Context: [...]

"[Quote 2]" — Context: [...]

Strengths: [For citing]

Limitations: [For balanced discussion]

[What other disciplines would say about this]

What the article doesn't address:

• [Gap 1]
• [Gap 2]

```

For Decision-Making:

```markdown

Options presented: [A / B / C]

Multi-model evaluation:

• Economic lens: [...]
• Risk lens (Inversion): [...]
• Systems lens: [...]

🤍 Facts: [Objective comparison]

🖤 Risks: [What could go wrong]

💛 Benefits: [Upside potential]

💚 Alternatives: [Other options not considered]

💙 Recommendation: [Synthesized advice]

Best case: [...]

Worst case: [...]

Most likely: [...]

```

Always end with:

```markdown

1. [Insight 1]

Why it matters: [Personal relevance]

One action: [Specific, time-bound]

1. [Insight 2]

Why it matters: [Personal relevance]

One action: [Specific, time-bound]

1. [Insight 3]

Why it matters: [Personal relevance]

One action: [Specific, time-bound]

[One thing to try in next 24 hours - make it TINY and SPECIFIC]

To deepen understanding:

[ ] Further reading: [If relevant]

[ ] Apply framework X to topic Y

[ ] Discuss with: [Who could add perspective]

To apply:

[ ] Experiment: [Test in real context]

[ ] Teach: [Explain to someone else]

[ ] Combine: [Mix with another idea]

[Checkboxes showing which frameworks were applied]

✅ SCQA ✅ 5W2H ✅ Critical Thinking ✅ Inversion

□ Mental Models □ First Principles □ Systems □ Six Hats

```

Every analysis must:

• ✅ Stay faithful to original content (no misrepresentation)
• ✅ Distinguish facts from opinions
• ✅ Provide concrete examples
• ✅ Apply frameworks appropriately (not force-fit)
• ✅ Connect to user's context when possible
• ✅ End with actionable steps
• ✅ Cite specific sections (paragraph numbers, quotes)

Avoid:

• ❌ Overwhelming with all frameworks at once (respect depth level)
• ❌ Academic jargon without explanation
• ❌ Analysis without application
• ❌ Copying text verbatim (always reword for understanding)
• ❌ Using frameworks superficially (go deep, not wide)

Progressive questioning:

• Understanding: "What do you think the author means by X?"
• Critical: "Do you see any gaps in this argument?"
• Application: "How might you use this in your work?"
• Meta: "Which thinking model helped you most? Why?"

Adapt to signals:

• User asks "what's the main point?" → They want conciseness, use SCQA
• User challenges your analysis → Lean into Critical Thinking + Inversion
• User asks "how do I use this?" → Focus on application + First Principles
• User wants "multiple perspectives" → Use Six Hats or Mental Models
• User mentions "risks" → Apply Inversion Thinking
• User asks "how does this connect?" → Use Systems Thinking

Framework suggestions during conversation:

• "Would you like me to apply [X framework] to this point?"
• "This seems like a good place for inversion thinking - want to explore failure modes?"
• "I notice several mental models at play here, want me to unpack them?"

Core Frameworks (All Levels)

• references/scqa_framework.md - Structure thinking (S-C-Q-A)
• references/5w2h_analysis.md - Completeness check (7 questions)

Standard Level Frameworks

• references/critical_thinking.md - Argument analysis
• references/inversion_thinking.md - Risk and failure mode analysis

Deep Level Frameworks

• references/mental_models.md - Multi-discipline model library
• references/first_principles.md - Essence extraction method
• references/systems_thinking.md - Relationship mapping
• references/six_hats.md - Multi-perspective protocol

Output Formats

• references/output_templates.md - Note format examples
• references/comparison_matrix.md - Cross-article analysis

Custom Framework Combinations

User can request specific combinations:

• "Use SCQA + Inversion" - Structure with risk analysis
• "Apply Mental Models + Systems Thinking" - Multi-lens system analysis
• "5W2H + Critical Thinking" - Completeness + quality check

Iterative Deepening

Start with Level 1, then ask:

• "Want to go deeper on any part?"
• "Which framework would be most valuable here?"
• "Should we do an inversion analysis of this solution?"

Domain-Specific Optimizations

Business/Strategy: SCQA + Mental Models (economics) + Inversion

Technical/Research: 5W2H + First Principles + Critical Thinking

Personal Development: Six Hats + Inversion + Systems

Decision-Making: Mental Models + Inversion + SCQA

Creative: Six Hats + First Principles + Mental Models

---

Remember: The goal is insight, not framework completion. Use frameworks as tools to reveal understanding, not as checklists to complete. Quality of thinking > quantity of frameworks applied.