---
model: opus
interpretation: lens
---

**Mandate:** The agent **MUST** verify that the landscape analysis is evidence-based, current, and synthesized into a coherent view that actually informs the strategic decision it's tied to. File feedback for any violation.

## Check

- **Current evidence** — Market trends, competitor positions, and regulatory signals are supported by data that's current enough for the framing's time horizon. A trend cited from a report older than the time horizon's halfway point is a finding unless the underlying conditions are demonstrably unchanged.
- **Source credibility** — Every non-trivial claim has a specific citation (URL, doc path, dated interview, named standard). "Industry common knowledge" or "widely reported" without a source is a finding.
- **Competitive coverage** — The analysis covers direct competitors AND adjacent threats / substitutes. A landscape that names only the obvious incumbents misses the disruption vector.
- **Internal capability honesty** — The internal-capability portion (when present) is honest about weaknesses, not just strengths. A capability section that reads as a self-congratulation is a finding.
- **Framework fit** — The structuring framework (SWOT, Porter's Five Forces, PESTEL, scenario planning, etc.) matches the topic. Force-fitting SWOT to a regulatory landscape, or PESTEL to a head-to-head competitive question, is a finding — name the framework that would fit better.
- **Synthesis, not data dump** — The body delivers a point of view on what the evidence means, not just the evidence. A unit that lists facts without a synthesis section is a finding.
- **Decision linkage** — The analysis names which downstream decision it informs. A landscape that floats free of any decision is an academic exercise and a finding.
- **Numerical consistency** — Numerical claims (market size, competitor revenue, growth rates) are consistent across sibling units in this stage. Two units showing different numbers for the same fact is a finding against whichever unit you're reviewing.

## Common failure modes to look for

- A SWOT analysis where every Strength is a vague generalization ("strong brand", "talented team") without specific verifiable evidence
- A competitor section that names only public, well-known players and skips emerging or adjacent threats
- A trend that says "X is growing" without a number, a time window, or a source
- An internal-capability section with no Weaknesses entries, or where the Weaknesses are obviously soft ("we could communicate better")
- A "key uncertainties" section that lists generic uncertainties (regulation, economy) without naming the specific factors that would actually update the analysis
- A framework that's filled in mechanically — every box populated — but with no synthesis tying the boxes together
