# Example Demonstrations

> This file contains two complete cross-industry examples demonstrating actual outputs for different working modes.

---

## Example 1: Store Brand Image Upgrade (F&B) — Full Mode

> Demonstrates full-mode complete output

### Simulated User Input

> "I run a coffee shop and want to upgrade the brand image. Budget is 150K CNY, need it done within 1 month. Store is operating, want minimal disruption."

### Mode Selection: Full Mode ✅

Trigger: Objective is relatively clear but details are insufficient (brand upgrade scope? VI components? construction plan?)

### Dimension 0: Key Assumptions & Constraints

| # | Assumption/Constraint | Type | Impact if Invalid | Contingency | Verification |
|:-:|----------------------|:----:|-------------------|-------------|-------------|
| 1 | Store area is 80-120 sqm | Assumption | Construction plan needs redesign | Adjust BOM based on actual area | On-site measurement |
| 2 | Owner can invest 2 hours/day during construction | Assumption | Decision delays impact schedule | Authorize store manager as proxy | Confirm owner's schedule |
| 3 | Local authorities permit illuminated signage | Assumption | Signage plan downgraded to non-illuminated | Backup non-illuminated plan | Consult urban mgmt dept |
| 4 | Budget 150K is hard ceiling, no additions | Constraint | N/A | N/A | Confirmed |
| 5 | Kitchen equipment and layout 100% unchanged | Constraint | N/A | N/A | Confirmed |

**High-Risk Assumption Alert**: Assumption #3 (signage permit) — if invalid, directly impacts storefront visual effect (core requirement). **Must verify by Day -20**.

### Dimension 1: WBS

```
[Store Brand Image Upgrade]
├── Phase 1: Design (Day -30 ~ Day -15, E=12 person-days, σ=2)
│    ├── 1.1 Site measurement & requirements confirmation O/1d M/2d P/3d → E=2±0.3d → Output: Requirements spec
│    ├── 1.2 VI system design (Logo/color/typography) O/3d M/5d P/7d → E=5±0.7d → Output: VI manual
│    ├── 1.3 SI space design (floor plan + renderings) O/3d M/4d P/6d → E=4.2±0.5d ||
│    └── 1.4 Construction drawings + material list O/2d M/3d P/4d → E=3±0.3d → Output: Construction drawings + BOM
├── Phase 2: Procurement & Preparation (Day -15 ~ Day -5, E=8 person-days, σ=1.5)
│    ├── 2.1 Material procurement (signage/lighting/furniture) O/3d M/5d P/7d → E=5±0.7d
│    └── 2.2 Construction crew confirmation & scheduling O/1d M/2d P/3d → E=2±0.3d ||
└── Phase 3: Construction & Acceptance (Day 0 ~ Day 7, E=6 person-days, σ=1)
     ├── 3.1 Demolition & debris removal O/0.5d M/1d P/1.5d → E=1±0.2d
     ├── 3.2 Base construction (ceiling/walls/electrical) O/1d M/2d P/3d → E=2±0.3d
     ├── 3.3 Installation (signage/lighting/furniture) O/1d M/1.5d P/2.5d → E=1.7±0.3d
     ├── 3.4 Soft furnishing & cleaning O/0.5d M/1d P/1.5d → E=1±0.2d
     └── 3.5 Acceptance & opening preparation O/0.5d M/0.5d P/1d → E=0.5±0.1d
```

**Critical Path**: 1.1 → 1.2 → 1.4 → 2.1 → 3.1 → 3.2 → 3.3 → 3.4 → 3.5
**Duration Confidence Interval**: E=30 days (68%: 27~33 days | 95%: 24~36 days)

### Dimension 9: Change Management Framework

**CCB Composition**:
- Chair: Project Manager (store owner) — holds final veto
- Members: Graphic designer representative, construction crew leader
- Secretary: Project Manager (dual role)

**Change Threshold** (minor changes not requiring CR):
- Same price-tier material substitution (e.g., Brand A tiles → Brand B equivalent)
- Construction sequence adjustment (not affecting total duration)
- Design copy/color tweaks (not changing Logo or main visual)

**Major Changes Requiring CR**:
- Scope changes (adding/removing functional modules)
- Schedule changes (exceeding ±2 days)
- Budget changes (exceeding ±5,000 CNY)
- Quality standard changes (lowering acceptance criteria)

### Dimension 11: Retrospective Framework

**Retrospective Schedule**:
| Timing | Content |
|--------|---------|
| After VI design complete | Experience on design direction choices (which styles were popular, which rejected) |
| After construction complete | Unexpected issues during construction and handling methods |
| 30 days post-opening | Actual foot traffic vs. expected (50→100 orders/month target) |

---

## Example 2: Corporate Website Redesign (Software) — Agile Mode

> Demonstrates Sprint-based decomposition under Agile mode

### User Input

> "We need to redesign our SaaS product's corporate website. Current site is outdated with low conversion rates. We want to use agile, delivering a demonstrable version every two weeks. Team has one frontend dev, one backend dev, one designer, and I'm the Product Owner."

### Mode Selection: Agile Mode ✅

Trigger keywords: "agile", "every two weeks", "demonstrable version"

### Dimension 0: Key Assumptions

| # | Assumption | Type | Verification | Risk Level |
|:-:|-----------|:----:|-------------|:----------:|
| 1 | Product Owner can commit 10 hours/week for reviews | Assumption | Confirm schedule | Medium |
| 2 | Designer and developers can cross-functionally collaborate | Assumption | Team interview | Low |
| 3 | Competitive analysis complete, direction confirmed | Assumption | Review competitor report | Low |
| 4 | Server resources provisioned | Assumption | Ops confirmation | Medium |

### Dimension 1: WBS (Sprint View)

```
[Sprint 0: Infrastructure] (Week 1)
├── Story 0.1: Git repo setup + CI/CD pipeline configuration (3pt)
├── Story 0.2: Design system setup (colors/typography/component specs) (5pt)
└── Story 0.3: Dev environment setup + database initialization (3pt)
Output: Working Dev environment + Design Tokens

★ [Sprint 0 Review Gate | Environment + Standards Acceptance]

[Sprint 1: MVP - Core Pages] (Week 2-3, 10 working days)
├── Story 1.1: Homepage (Hero section + value proposition + CTA) (5pt)
├── Story 1.2: Product showcase page (list + detail) (8pt)
└── Story 1.3: Responsive layout base framework (3pt) ||
Output: Homepage and product pages viewable on mobile/tablet/desktop

★ [Sprint 1 Review Gate | Demo + User Feedback Collection]

[Sprint 2: MVP - Conversion Features] (Week 4-5, 10 working days)
├── Story 2.1: Online inquiry form (5pt)
├── Story 2.2: Case studies / customer testimonials module (5pt) ||
├── Story 2.3: SEO basics (meta/sitemap) (3pt) ||
Output: Complete site with inquiry conversion capability

★ [Sprint 2 Review Gate | Conversion Funnel Data Preview]

[Sprint 3: Optimization + Launch] (Week 6-7, 10 working days)
├── Story 3.1: Performance optimization (LCP<2.5s, CLS<0.1) (5pt)
├── Story 3.2: Compatibility fixes (Safari/mobile) (3pt)
├── Story 3.3: Analytics tracking + monitoring alerts (3pt) ||
├── Story 3.4: Deployment + DNS cutover (2pt) ||
Output: Production-ready optimized site

★ [Final Release Gate | Launch Approval + Announcement]
```

**Critical Path**: Sprint 0 → Sprint 1 → Sprint 2 → Sprint 3 (serial dependency)
**Duration Confidence Interval**: E=7 weeks (68%: 6.5~7.5 weeks | 95%: 6~9 weeks)

### Dimension 3: Stakeholder Analysis

| # | Stakeholder | Role | Power | Interest | Quadrant | Attitude | Strategy | Comm Frequency |
|:-:|------------|------|:-----:|:--------:|:--------:|:--------:|----------|:--------------:|
| 1 | CEO | Decision-maker | High | High | Manage Closely | Supportive | Invite to every Sprint Review | Biweekly |
| 2 | Sales Director | Inquiry form user | High | High | Manage Closely | Neutral | Focus on inquiry form requirements | Biweekly |
| 3 | Existing Customers | Site users | Low | High | Keep Informed | Neutral | Collect feedback post-launch | Monthly |
| 4 | IT Operations | Deployment support | Medium | Low | Keep Satisfied | Supportive | Notify deployment needs 2 weeks ahead | As needed |
| 5 | Competitors | External observers | Low | Low | Monitor | Opposed | Monitor but don't engage | None |

### Dimension 9: Agile Change Management

**Agile Change Rules**:
- **No changes within Sprint**: Once Sprint starts, commitment is locked; new requirements enter Product Backlog
- **Between-Sprint changes**: Adjust Backlog priority during Planning Meeting
- **Emergency changes**: Only P0 production incidents can interrupt current Sprint
- **Backlog priority adjustment**: PO may adjust anytime, but must explain to team at Review

**Change Log (Simplified)**:

| Sprint | Change | Reason | Impact | Resolution |
|:------:|--------|--------|:------:|------------|
| Planning | Added "Customer Login" Story | Sales Director strongly requested | +8pt, displaces one Sprint 2 Story | Deprioritize Story 2.3 to Sprint 3 |

### Dimension 10: Feasibility Assessment

*   **Feasibility Conclusion**: **Viable (Agile Mode Recommended)**
*   **Critical Success Factors**: Product Owner's sustained participation + timely Sprint Review feedback loop
*   **Greatest Risk**: Sprint 2 inquiry form design may require multiple iterations (Sales Director has high expectations)
*   **Assumption Validity**: Assumption #1 (PO time commitment) and #4 (server resources) must be confirmed before Sprint 0 starts
*   **Go/No-Go Recommendation**: **Go (recommend starting Sprint 0 immediately)** — team is ready, suggest Week 1 infrastructure kickoff

### Dimension 11: Retrospective Framework

**Preset Retrospective Points**:
- Retrospective after each Sprint completion (45 minutes)
- Conversion data analysis retrospective 2 weeks post-launch
- Overall project retrospective 30 days post-launch (KPT model)