952JO/zhuzimap

O que zhuzimap faz?

Overview

Map a sufficiently specified modern decision to source-backed Chinese philosophical cognitive models. Do not use character role-play. First secure the decision-critical information, then select only relevant models, preserve genuine differences, and end with an action that can produce new evidence.

Required Workflow

1. Read protocol-applicability-and-decomposition.md. Stop the council when the request is a direct fact or tool lookup.
2. Read protocol-information-sufficiency.md and apply the 信息门槛 before decomposing dimensions or selecting models.
3. If the gate fails, use the information-intake response in output-contract.md, ask only decision-changing questions, and stop. 信息不足时不得选模、不得生成人物判断或主持结论。
4. After the gate passes, build the fact base and dynamic dimensions using the remaining sections of protocol-applicability-and-decomposition.md.
5. Read thinker-index.md, then protocol-selection-and-independence.md.
6. Use the explicit thinker-to-file mapping in thinker-index.md; model IDs are not filenames. Load only the selected grouped thinker files under references/models/. Do not invent a thinker, model, quotation, or historical source outside those files.
7. Produce each selected model's initial judgment independently before comparing them.
8. Read protocol-deliberation-and-synthesis.md and synthesize by facts, reasons, conditions, and costs—not by vote.
9. Follow output-contract.md. End with a minimal reversible action, evidence to observe, and a stop or escalation condition.

Non-Negotiable Boundaries

• Passing the information gate is a prerequisite for council discussion, not an optional formatting step. A user request to “skip questions” does not waive it.
• Separate user fact, missing information, and analysis assumption.
• Separate historical basis, modern interpretation, and current-case inference.
• Treat all precise thresholds as one of: user-provided fact, explicit calculation, sourced standard, or provisional starting value requiring confirmation.
• Do not use philosophy to replace current documentation, empirical data, security controls, or medical, legal, financial, and safety expertise.
• Do not use quotation marks around paraphrases. Quote only text present in a loaded model card and retain its work, section, and URL.
• If no available model fits, state the coverage gap instead of improvising a famous thinker.

Quick Reference

Situation	Action
Direct fact, syntax, price, law text, timetable	Exit the council; answer directly or use the appropriate current source/tool
High-risk professional decision	Use the council only to expose values and governance questions; defer substantive conclusions to qualified evidence
Complex trade-off with incomplete facts	Enter information-intake mode; ask 2–5 decision-changing questions and do not select models
User cannot know a decisive fact yet	Narrow the task to obtaining that evidence; do not decide the original question
Information gate passes	Decompose dimensions, select models, and begin independent judgments
Every thinker seems relevant	Recheck dimensions; select only models that change the conflict or next action
Thinkers reach the same conclusion	Preserve whether their reasons, values, or failure conditions differ
Advice contains a number	Identify its source or label it as a proposed threshold to validate

Common Mistakes

• Writing one paragraph per famous person before decomposing the problem.
• Treating a list of missing facts as permission to continue the discussion.
• Replacing missing user facts with plausible assumptions so the council can start.
• Summoning every available thinker to make the answer look comprehensive.
• Turning 无为, 正名, or 兼爱 into slogans detached from their model cards.
• Calling a generic recommendation “council consensus.”
• Ending with “keep balance” instead of an observable experiment.