Map Information Asymmetry

Map Information Asymmetry

When to use

Negotiations, deals, hiring, customer relationships — when one party plausibly knows something the other doesn't and signaling/screening mechanics matter.

What this skill does not do

• Does not value the deal — surfaces asymmetry implications; does not replace financial modeling.
• Does not invent hidden information — asks user or flags gaps [review].
• Does not recommend proceed/abandon — states strategic implication; strategist decides.

Preconditions

| Input | If missing | |---|---| | Situation stated precisely (deal, negotiation, relationship) | Ask once to narrow | | Parties identified | Ask who is on each side | | Known private information categories | Proceed with [PROVISIONAL] — label asymmetries as hypotheses |

Provisional mode

Without diligence data: map hypothesized asymmetries tagged [review]; do not assert informed/uninformed position as fact.

Trust spine

• Confidence bands (hypothesis-driven-analysis):
• High: Concrete hidden-info categories per party; costly signal or screen mechanism named; adverse-selection assessed.
• Medium: Some categories inferred; signal/screen options listed with gaps.
• Low: Situation vague — refuse to map until scoped.
• Failure modes:
• Strategic advice vs. support: Strategic implication is diagnostic, not a deal recommendation.
• Client confidentiality: Deal terms and hidden info highly sensitive — CONFIDENTIAL header.
• Accountability gap: Forces admission when user is uninformed party — [review] on exposure.
• Analytical Rigor: Specific hidden-info categories; costly-signal test applied (cheap signals rejected).
• Incentive Gaming: N/A — information-structure focus.
• Escalation triggers: Adverse-selection spiral present with no credible signal/screen — flag blocking risk.

Workflow

1. State the situation precisely.
2. List what each party knows that the other plausibly doesn't — specific categories, not vague "knows more."
3. Determine informed vs. uninformed side — including when user is uninformed.
4. If informed: name credible costly signal available, or "none currently available."
5. If uninformed: name screening mechanism, or "none currently applied."
6. Apply market-for-lemons logic where quality is hard to verify pre-commitment.
7. State strategic implication — exploiting advantage, giving one away, or exposed.
8. MECE check: both parties' hidden-info lists complete for stated situation.

Output format

CONFIDENCE: [defensible recommendation | structured first pass]
SITUATION: [the deal/negotiation/relationship in question]

WHAT [PARTY A] KNOWS THAT [PARTY B] DOESN'T: [specific, concrete]
WHAT [PARTY B] KNOWS THAT [PARTY A] DOESN'T: [specific, concrete]

YOUR POSITION: [informed | uninformed] on [which specific asymmetry]

IF INFORMED: Available costly signal: [specific mechanism, or "none currently available"]
IF UNINFORMED: Available screening mechanism: [specific mechanism, or "none currently applied"]

ADVERSE SELECTION RISK: [present / not present — explain]

STRATEGIC IMPLICATION: [exploiting an advantage / giving one away / exposed to one — be direct]

Worked example

Input: Acquiring a SaaS target; seller claims 5% churn; buyer lacks cohort data.

Expected output (excerpt):

CONFIDENCE: structured first pass
SITUATION: Acquisition of TargetCo at 8x ARR

WHAT SELLER KNOWS THAT BUYER DOESN'T: True logo churn by cohort, expansion vs. contraction drivers
WHAT BUYER KNOWS THAT SELLER DOESN'T: Integration cost estimate, synergy capture timeline

YOUR POSITION: uninformed on churn quality

IF UNINFORMED: Available screening mechanism: tiered earnout tied to net retention at 12 months [review]

ADVERSE SELECTION RISK: present — churn unverified pre-close may select for overstated retention

STRATEGIC IMPLICATION: exposed — price assumes stated churn; structure or diligence required before proceeding [review]

Quality checks before delivering

• [ ] Hidden information specific, not vague
• [ ] Informed/uninformed position stated honestly
• [ ] Costly-signal test applied (cheap signals rejected)
• [ ] Strategic implication stated directly
• [ ] Output does not read as deal recommendation

Propose profile update

When a stable convention surfaces during this run (thresholds, naming, tone, output format, or recurring corrections), propose a profile update: show the exact diff against ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-strategy/market-intelligence/CLAUDE.md (org-wide facts go to org-profile.md), ask for confirmation, and write only on yes. Only /market-intelligence:practice-setup auto-applies a full profile write.

Outputs

Follows plugin CLAUDE.md § Outputs. Next: diligence plan, deal-structure revision, or corp-strategy evaluation.

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

• Author: daddia
• Source: daddia/claude-for-strategy
• License: MIT

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.