wild-idea

V5 — Inject wild remote domains (hydrothermal vents, monasteries, bee dances, Bushmen, casinos, classical music, immune system, alchemy, polar expeditions) as concrete 'nails' and juxtapose them directly against user-domain 'counterparts'. Zero analysis/translation/abstraction between nail and counterpart. Dual gate: comfort check (would a VP wince?) + web verification (already done? reroll.)

🌐 WildIdea — Wild Ideas

Core Philosophy

V5 Path (enforced): Input → Juxtapose → Find nails → Output counterparts

nails = a specific operation/rule/physical constraint, must include a number/event/boundary counterparts = a specific existing product/technology/feature name Zero abstraction between nail and counterpart.

The fundamental trap of earlier versions: every piece of "analysis" / "abstraction" / "translation" between the remote domain and the user domain is contaminated by your own thinking framework. The cure: don't think. Just juxtapose.

Source Architecture

Channel	Count	Reference
🔵 Pre-built remote domains	3	references/paradigms.md (17 domains, prefer 7.9-7.17)
🟢 Seed library (random)	2	scripts/pick_seed.py (Mao Zedong quotes → abstract structure)
🟠 Random char + web search	1	scripts/search_char.py (500-character pool → Tavily search → real domain)
🔍 Web verification	—	Tavily API via curl

Nail Rules

✅ Is a nail	❌ Not a nail
"Bees: 75ms wing flutter = 1km distance" (concrete number)	"Bee communication is efficient" (analysis/summary)
"One lamb skin = 3-4 folio pages of parchment" (physical constraint)	"Copying is a form of cultivation" (abstract idea)
"Drone bee dies immediately after mating" (concrete event)	"Expendable male roles in insect society" (concept label)
"Shackleton abandoned all equipment to save crew" (concrete decision)	"People over assets in crisis leadership" (abstract interpretation)

Counterpart Rules

✅ Is a counterpart	❌ Not a counterpart
Concrete tech/product/feature name — "iPhone Live Photos", "VSCode debugger", "Tesla Dog Mode"	Vague concept — "improve experience", "reduce friction", "better UX"

Core Process

Step 0 — Quarantine the obvious

Step 1 — Inject 3 remote channels

Run all 3 in parallel, output results as-is (no analysis):

• 🔵 Load references/paradigms.md, pick 3 domains (prefer 7.9-7.17: weirder the better)
• 🟢 Run python3 scripts/pick_seed.py → get 2 seed texts + abstract tags
• 🟠 Run python3 scripts/search_char.py → get real search results

Step 2 — Juxtapose → Find nails → Find counterparts

Forbidden: ANY analysis/abstraction/translation between nail and counterpart. No "because", "therefore", "this means", "this implies".

Pick 1 concrete nail from each domain (the most specific operation/event/constraint). Find 1 concrete counterpart from the user's domain.

Step 3 — Output

Table of nail ↔ counterpart. No connecting text between them.

Step 4 — GATES

1. 🌪️ Comfort Gate: "Would this get pushback in a product review meeting?"

   • "Nah, makes sense" → ❌ Not wild enough. Reroll.
   • "WTF... but wait, there's something there" → ✅ Pass.

2. 🔍 Web Verification Gate: Search if the counterpart already exists.

   • Search terms: [counterpart name] + [domain]
   • If a product/patent/media already implements this → 🚫 Ban. Reroll from remaining paradigms.
   • Max 3 retries per domain. If all exhausted → 🚫 Skip domain.

Quality Gates (Hard Constraints)

1. At least 3 different source domains
2. At least 1 from seed library or random char search
3. Pass "remove remote domain test" — if the counterpart still makes sense without its nail source, delete it
4. No "it's like XX" soft commentary
5. No fabricating search results
6. At least 1 output changes the user's problem definition
7. Comfort check fail (too reasonable) → Blocked
8. Web verification found existing implementation → Reroll

Second Iteration Mode

If user says "reroll" / "iterate" / "go deeper" / "ban and redo":

1. Build two-layer quarantine: (a) common answers, (b) all counterpart outputs from previous round
2. Reroll all 3 channels (no reusing previous seeds/domains)
3. Juxtapose normally, avoiding all banned directions
4. Output: simple bold 3-column table. No poster.

Iteration Discipline

• ❌ No returning to banned directions ("rewording")
• ❌ No stopping before user says "deep enough"
• ✅ If user says "expand on #3" → deep-dive that single nail/counterpart relationship
• ✅ If user says "this is too safe" → delete, reroll seed, redo

Scripts

pick_seed.py

Picks 2 random Mao Zedong quotes from a 50-seed pool. Outputs: seed index, seed text, abstract tags. Pitfall: Do NOT pre-filter based on user's question. Random is random.

search_char.py

Picks 2 random Chinese characters, concatenates into a "word", searches via Tavily API. If the search returns a real domain (linguistics, traditional craft, regional industry, etc.) → use it. If search is empty/garbled → skip, note as 🚫. No fabricating.

Web Verification (Tavily)

Use curl + Tavily API to verify counterparts are novel:

bash

curl -s "https://api.tavily.com/search" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{"api_key": "'"$TAVILY_API_KEY"'", "query": "your search", "search_depth": "basic", "max_results": 5}'

Known Issues

1. search_char.py may yield weak results — e.g. two random chars format a real Chinese word but it's generic. Label the domain honestly (e.g. "linguistics"). Don't retry or fabricate.
2. Web verification loop may exhaust all paradigms — Max 3 retries per domain. Skip honestly.
3. Comfort check is inherently subjective — "Would a VP wince?" If unsure → fail. Better to output fewer items than let a "reasonable" one through.
4. do NOT use the domain as a metaphor — "Bee dance is LIKE word of mouth" is contamination.
5. do NOT abstract the user's problem — Don't "reframe" or "distill essence." Leave the problem as-is.

Poster Template

For visual output, use templates/poster.html with placeholder substitution.