synthesis-and-analogy

---
name: synthesis-and-analogy
description: Synthesizes information from multiple sources into coherent insights and applies analogical reasoning to transfer knowledge across domains. Use when conducting literature reviews, integrating stakeholder feedback, reconciling conflicting viewpoints, identifying cross-source patterns, creating explanatory analogies ("X is like Y"), finding creative solutions through cross-domain transfer, or testing whether analogies hold (surface vs deep). Use when user mentions "synthesize", "combine sources", "analogy", "similar to", "transfer from", "integrate findings".
---
# Synthesis & Analogy

## Table of Contents
- [Workflow](#workflow)
- [Synthesis Techniques](#synthesis-techniques)
- [Analogy Techniques](#analogy-techniques)
- [Common Patterns](#common-patterns)
- [Guardrails](#guardrails)
- [Quick Reference](#quick-reference)

## Workflow

Copy this checklist and track your progress:

```
Synthesis & Analogy Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Clarify goal and gather sources/domains
- [ ] Step 2: Choose approach (synthesis, analogy, or both)
- [ ] Step 3: Apply synthesis or analogy techniques
- [ ] Step 4: Test quality and validity
- [ ] Step 5: Refine and deliver insights
```

**Step 1: Clarify goal**

For synthesis: What sources? What question are we answering? What conflicts need resolving? For analogy: What's source domain (familiar)? What's target domain (explaining)? What's goal (explain, solve, ideate)? See [Common Patterns](#common-patterns) for typical goals.

**Step 2: Choose approach**

Synthesis only → Use [Synthesis Techniques](#synthesis-techniques). Analogy only → Use [Analogy Techniques](#analogy-techniques). Both → Start with synthesis to find patterns, then use analogy to explain or transfer. For straightforward cases → Use [resources/template.md](resources/template.md). For complex multi-domain synthesis → Study [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md).

**Step 3: Apply techniques**

For synthesis: Identify themes across sources, note agreements/disagreements, resolve conflicts via higher-level framework, extract patterns. For analogy: Map structure from source to target (what corresponds to what?), identify shared relationships (not surface features), test mapping validity. See [Synthesis Techniques](#synthesis-techniques) and [Analogy Techniques](#analogy-techniques).

**Step 4: Test quality**

Self-assess using [resources/evaluators/rubric_synthesis_and_analogy.json](resources/evaluators/rubric_synthesis_and_analogy.json). Synthesis checks: captures all sources? resolves conflicts? identifies patterns? adds insight? Analogy checks: structure preserved? deep not surface? limitations acknowledged? helps understanding? Minimum standard: Score ≥3.5 average.

**Step 5: Refine and deliver**

Create `synthesis-and-analogy.md` with: synthesis summary (themes, agreements, conflicts, patterns, new insights) OR analogy explanation (source domain, target domain, mapping table, what transfers, limitations), supporting evidence from sources, actionable implications.

## Synthesis Techniques

**Thematic Synthesis** (identify recurring themes):
1. **Extract**: Read each source, note key points and themes
2. **Code**: Label similar ideas with same theme tag (e.g., "onboarding friction", "pricing confusion")
3. **Count**: Track frequency (how many sources mention each theme?)
4. **Rank**: Prioritize by frequency × importance
5. **Synthesize**: Describe each major theme with supporting evidence from sources

**Conflict Resolution Synthesis** (reconcile disagreements):
- **Meta-level framework**: Both right from different perspectives (e.g., "Source A prioritizes speed, Source B prioritizes quality - depends on context")
- **Scope distinction**: Disagree on scope ("Source A: feature X broken for enterprise. Source B: works for SMB. Synthesis: works for SMB, broken for enterprise")
- **Temporal**: Disagreement over time ("Source A: strategy X failed in 2010. Source B: works in 2024. Context changed: market maturity")
- **Null hypothesis**: Genuinely conflicting evidence → state uncertainty, propose tests

**Pattern Identification** (find cross-cutting insights):
- Look for repeated structures (same problem in different guises)
- Find causal patterns (when X, then Y across multiple sources)
- Identify outliers (sources that contradict pattern - why?)
- Extract meta-insights (what does the pattern tell us?)

**Example**: Synthesizing 10 postmortems → Pattern: 80% of incidents involve config change + lack of rollback plan. Outliers: 2 incidents hardware failure. Meta-insight: Need config change review process + automatic rollback capability.

## Analogy Techniques

**Structural Mapping Theory**:
1. **Identify source domain** (familiar, well-understood)
2. **Identify target domain** (unfamiliar, explaining)
3. **Map entities**: What in source corresponds to what in target?
4. **Map relationships**: Preserve relationships (if A→B in source, then A'→B' in target)
5. **Test mapping**: Do relationships transfer? Are there unmapped elements?
6. **Acknowledge limits**: Where does analogy break down?

**Surface vs Deep Analogies**:
- **Surface (weak)**: Share superficial features (both round, both red) - not illuminating
- **Deep (strong)**: Share structural relationships (both have hub-spoke topology, both use feedback loops) - insightful

**Example - Surface**: "Brain is like computer (both process information)" - too vague, doesn't help
**Example - Deep**: "Brain neurons are like computer transistors: neurons fire/don't fire (binary), connect in networks, learning = strengthening connections (weights). BUT neurons are analog/probabilistic, computer precise/deterministic" - preserves structure, acknowledges limits

**Analogy Quality Tests**:
- **Systematicity**: Do multiple relationships map (not just one)?
- **Structural preservation**: Do causal relations transfer?
- **Productivity**: Does analogy generate new predictions/insights?
- **Scope limits**: Where does analogy break? (Always acknowledge)

## Common Patterns

**Pattern 1: Literature Review Synthesis**
- Goal: Combine research papers into narrative
- Technique: Thematic synthesis (extract themes, note agreements/conflicts, identify gaps)
- Output: "Research shows X (5 studies support), but Y remains controversial (3 for, 2 against due to methodology differences). Gap: no studies on Z population."

**Pattern 2: Multi-Stakeholder Synthesis**
- Goal: Integrate feedback from design, engineering, product, customers
- Technique: Conflict resolution synthesis (meta-level framework, scope distinctions)
- Output: "Design wants A (aesthetics), Engineering wants B (performance), Product wants C (speed). All valid - prioritize C (speed) for v1, A (aesthetics) for v2, B (performance) as ongoing optimization."

**Pattern 3: Explanatory Analogy**
- Goal: Explain technical concept to non-technical audience
- Technique: Structural mapping from familiar domain
- Output: "Git branches are like alternate timelines in sci-fi: main branch is prime timeline, feature branches are 'what if' explorations. Merge = timeline convergence. Conflicts = paradoxes to resolve."

**Pattern 4: Cross-Domain Problem-Solving**
- Goal: Solve problem by transferring solution from different field
- Technique: Identify structural similarity, map solution elements
- Output: "Warehouse routing problem is structurally similar to ant colony optimization: ants find shortest paths via pheromone trails. Transfer: use reinforcement learning with 'digital pheromones' (successful route weights) to optimize warehouse paths."

**Pattern 5: Creative Ideation via Analogy**
- Goal: Generate novel ideas by exploring analogies
- Technique: Forced connections, random domain pairing, systematic variation
- Output: "How is code review like restaurant food critique? Critic (reviewer) evaluates dish (code) on presentation (readability), taste (correctness), technique (architecture). Transfer: multi-criteria rubric for code review focusing on readability, correctness, architecture."

## Guardrails

**Synthesis Quality:**
- Covers all relevant sources (no cherry-picking)
- Resolves conflicts explicitly (doesn't ignore disagreements)
- Identifies patterns beyond what individual sources state (adds value)
- Distinguishes facts from interpretations
- Cites sources for claims
- Acknowledges gaps and uncertainties

**Analogy Quality:**
- Maps structure not surface features (deep analogy)
- Explicitly states what corresponds to what (mapping table)
- Tests validity (do relationships transfer?)
- Acknowledges where analogy breaks down (limitations)
- Doesn't overextend (knows when to stop pushing analogy)
- Appropriate for audience (familiar source domain)

**Avoid:**
- **False synthesis**: Forcing agreement where genuine conflict exists
- **Surface analogies**: "Both are round" doesn't help understanding
- **Analogy as proof**: Analogies illustrate, don't prove
- **Overgeneralization**: One source ≠ pattern
- **Cherry-picking**: Ignoring inconvenient sources
- **Mixing levels**: Confusing data with interpretation

## Quick Reference

**Inputs Required:**

For synthesis:
- Multiple sources (papers, interviews, datasets, feedback, research)
- Question to answer or goal to achieve
- Conflicts or patterns to identify

For analogy:
- Source domain (familiar, well-understood)
- Target domain (unfamiliar, explaining or solving)
- Goal (explain, solve problem, generate ideas)

**Techniques to Use:**

Synthesis:
- Thematic synthesis → Identify recurring themes
- Conflict resolution → Reconcile disagreements via meta-framework
- Pattern identification → Find cross-cutting insights

Analogy:
- Structural mapping → Map entities and relationships
- Surface vs deep test → Ensure structural not superficial similarity
- Validity test → Check if relationships transfer

**Outputs Produced:**

- `synthesis-and-analogy.md` with:
  - Synthesis: themes, agreements, conflicts resolved, patterns, new insights, supporting evidence
  - Analogy: source domain, target domain, mapping table (what↔what), transferred insights, limitations
  - Actionable implications

**Resources:**
- Quick synthesis or analogy → [resources/template.md](resources/template.md)
- Complex multi-source or multi-domain → [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md)
- Quality validation → [resources/evaluators/rubric_synthesis_and_analogy.json](resources/evaluators/rubric_synthesis_and_analogy.json)

**Minimum Quality Standard:**
- Synthesis: covers all sources, resolves conflicts, identifies patterns, adds insight
- Analogy: structural mapping clear, deep not surface, limitations acknowledged
- Both: evidence-based, cited sources, actionable
- Average rubric score ≥ 3.5/5 before delivering