These are general instructions, not a description of this user's particular AI system, tools, access, or circumstances. Adapt the method to the user's goal and the capabilities you can actually use, while preserving the activity's essential sequence, review points, and intended result.

### Start with the activity and the user's context

Read the complete activity and guide the user through it. Use the activity prompt yourself; the user does not need to paste it again. Keep the responsibilities of the user, the AI, and any colleague clear.

Begin with what the user has already supplied. Establish the intended result and resolve missing context through focused questions when needed. Work within the activity's stated scope, permissions, required confirmations, and stopping points, including any deliberate order for introducing information. Make progress with the available information and reasonable, clearly identified assumptions where the activity allows them.

### Check the capabilities needed for this work

Inspect relevant available tools, connectors, and data. Use small, relevant, non-destructive checks to establish whether necessary access or a capability actually works. Naming a product does not establish access to it. Let this activity determine what needs checking; do not impose a universal preliminary questionnaire or a full system audit.

When useful access is missing:

- Explain what you cannot reach and how that material would help.
- Investigate practical setup, connection, export, or other access alternatives before asking the user to gather material or troubleshoot.
- If progress depends on access, request only the specific user action or permission needed to enable it or provide the material another way. Continue useful independent work while awaiting the response.
- Offer to walk the user through an export or upload. Welcome files, links, copied text, rough notes, or an interview as supported by your system and the activity, and use the best available route. If the missing access is optional, continue with what is available.

### Ask focused questions and respect the answers

Ask questions only when necessary to complete the work well or satisfy the activity's required review points. Build on answers already supplied. Ask one question at a time, or a small group of closely related questions. Wait on work that depends on the answer, and continue useful work that does not. Explain unfamiliar language with examples where helpful.

Confirm answers or decisions you supply on the user's behalf before treating them as the user's final answers or decisions. This does not require separate approval of every sourced finding; follow the activity's specific review requirements.

### Keep evidence and independent contributions distinct

Distinguish evidence, inference, and missing information. Check your work against the source material.

Use independent agents when your system actually supports delegation and independent investigation or review would improve the work:

- Give each agent a bounded brief and the context appropriate to its role.
- Keep discovery independent until synthesis where the activity requires it. Preserve any requirement for the user or colleagues to contribute before seeing other explanations.
- Follow the activity's stated fallback and any required confirmation when independent agents or fresh contexts are unavailable. Preserve reviewer isolation where required; describe shared-context or sequential passes accurately.

### Produce, check, and revise the result

Do the substantive investigation and production. Carry the activity through to the most complete, usable result within its scope, rather than ending with a plan or handing the main work back to the user. When missing information does not prevent useful work, proceed with clearly identified assumptions where the activity permits them.

Check the result against the activity's completion criteria. At each substantive delivery, state what is complete and any material unfinished work, assumptions, helpful missing information, and remaining uncertainty. Explain how these affect what the user can use, and help the user revise the result.

Preserve the activity's stopping point. Do not turn a rehearsal, investigation, or test-design activity into execution that the user has not authorized.

Find additional documented public examples of companies turning existing assets or internally developed capabilities into paid external offers. Investigate other companies’ published cases, not my company’s private assets. Use the collection accompanying this prompt as a later comparison set, not the discovery brief. If it is unavailable, find cases and clearly say novelty against that collection could not be checked.

First inspect your available web-research and agent capabilities. If live source access is unavailable, say what is missing and ask for access or source material; do not present recollection as fresh research.

Run four discovery lanes: (1) data, measurement, and models; (2) expertise and internal tools; (3) physical capacity and byproducts; (4) supporting operations and other mechanisms the first three lanes might overlook. If concurrent capacity is limited, run fresh agents in successive waves, keeping the packets private until every lane has completed its first pass. You may combine lanes 1 and 2 when that fits the available capacity.

Use separate discovery agents when available. Start each discovery agent in a fresh context with no inherited conversation or previously collected findings. Give it only the research question, its assigned lane, and the evidence requirements below, without this page’s example list. If the tool cannot isolate agent context, use the separate-pass fallback and disclose that the searches shared context. Each must complete its first searches independently and return a separate evidence packet before receiving others’ results. Seek unfamiliar sectors, company sizes, and geographies; do not make those categories quotas or infer that separate agents guarantee variety. Keep packets separate until every first pass is complete.

Have each agent seek three to five credible candidates using multiple search formulations. For each, record the original resource and internal use, outside buyer and problem, concrete offer and charging basis, dates, primary-source URLs, and supporting passages or precise source locations. Separately record origin evidence and commercial evidence. Distinguish a published price, reported transactions, disclosed revenue, and a hypothetical opportunity. Include rejected leads with reasons, territories searched, access limits, and gaps.

After collection, give a separate source-verifier the packets. It must inspect sources independently of the discovery agents, check that cited text supports each claim, and identify whether internal origin and paid external use are established. Attribute company and provider accounts, preserve dates, and qualify partial evidence. Reject or clearly label unsupported claims. Discovery agents must not approve their own findings.

Only after every discovery lane has completed its first pass and the separate source-verification pass is complete should the lead open the existing collection at https://bingo.feedforward-collective.com/moves/081/research for comparison. If the page cannot be read, try its plain-text export at https://bingo.feedforward-collective.com/moves/081/research/resources.txt or ask the user to paste the collection text; offer to walk them through getting it. Do not give the collection or these comparison links to discovery agents in their first-pass briefs. If the collection remains unavailable, continue with the verified cases and clearly say novelty against it could not be checked. Then combine verified results, compare them with the collection when available, remove duplicates, and identify underexplored mechanisms. Run a targeted follow-up search if it can fill a material gap, and verify its results too. Stop after that follow-up; retain unresolved leads without padding the accepted list.

If separate agents are unavailable, perform distinct discovery passes with separate notes, followed by a dedicated source-checking pass. State that these passes shared context and were not independent agents.

Deliver a dated research brief with additional accepted cases, concise asset-to-offer explanations, evidence strength, primary-source links, useful discovery patterns, rejected or unresolved leads, coverage gaps, and a truthful account of the method actually used. Explain what the cases suggest without treating their success as evidence that any particular company has a viable opportunity.