wm-atlas-evolution-mismatch

name: wm-atlas-evolution-mismatch description: > Identify components where the execution strategy (build/buy/outsource) does not match the evolution stage. Custom-building commodities? Outsourcing genesis work? Also identifies components with no execution strategy decorator. Produces a mismatch-annotated map with notes explaining each discrepancy and its cost. compatibility: Requires Node.js (npx) for OWM rendering via cli-owm metadata: author: monkeypants version: "0.1" skillset: wardley-mapping stage: "atlas" freedom: medium

Atlas: Evolution-Execution Mismatch

You are generating a mismatch-focused map from a comprehensive Wardley Map. This view identifies components where the execution strategy (build, buy, outsource) does not align with the component's evolution stage. Mismatches are either costly mistakes or deliberate strategic choices -- this analysis distinguishes between the two.

Prerequisites

Check that the project directory contains:

• strategy/map.agreed.owm

Also check for (use if present, provide richer analysis):

• strategy/plays/*.md
• evolve/assessments/*.md

If strategy/map.agreed.owm is missing, tell the user to complete wm-strategy first.

The project path is clients/{org}/projects/{project-slug}/.

Staleness check

Compare modification times:

• Sources: strategy/map.agreed.owm, strategy/plays/*.md
• Outputs: atlas/evolution-mismatch/map.owm, atlas/evolution-mismatch/analysis.md

If all outputs exist and are newer than all sources, report that the evolution-mismatch atlas is up to date and skip regeneration. If any source is newer, or any output is missing, proceed.

Step 1: Extract execution strategies

Read strategy/map.agreed.owm and classify every component:

For each component, record:

• Name and position [visibility, maturity]
• Evolution stage: Genesis (0.00-0.17), Custom (0.17-0.40), Product (0.40-0.70), Commodity (0.70-1.00)
• Execution decorator: (build), (buy), (outsource), or none
• Evolve arrow target (if any): where the component is heading

Also record standalone execution keywords (build X, buy X, outsource X) that may apply to components without inline decorators.

Step 2: Define the alignment model

The expected alignment between evolution and execution:

Transitions are acceptable near stage boundaries:

• Custom/Product boundary (0.35-0.45): buy or build are both reasonable
• Product/Commodity boundary (0.65-0.75): buy or outsource are both reasonable

Step 3: Identify mismatches

For each component with an execution decorator, compare against the alignment model. Classify as:

Aligned: execution matches evolution stage.

Boundary: execution is acceptable given proximity to a stage boundary.

Mismatched: execution conflicts with evolution stage. Subcategories:

• Over-investing: building or buying what should be outsourced (commodity treated as custom)
• Under-investing: outsourcing or buying what should be built (genesis/custom treated as commodity)
• Wrong market engagement: buying what should be built, or building what should be bought

For each mismatch, check strategy/plays/*.md to determine whether the mismatch is deliberate (explained and justified in a play) or unintentional (no play addresses it).

Step 4: Identify missing decorators

List every component that has no execution strategy decorator and no standalone execution keyword. These are components with unclear ownership — nobody has decided how they should be sourced.

For each, recommend an execution strategy based on the alignment model.

Step 5: Generate mismatch map

Read owm-dsl-reference.md for full OWM syntax.

Write atlas/evolution-mismatch/map.owm:

title {Organisation} — Evolution/Execution Mismatches
// Derived from strategy/map.agreed.owm — do not edit directly

// Anchors
anchor {Anchor} [{vis}, {mat}]

// Aligned components (included for context, no special marking)
component {Aligned Component} [{vis}, {mat}] ({strategy})

// Mismatched components (preserve their incorrect decorator)
component {Mismatched Component} [{vis}, {mat}] ({current_strategy})

// Components with no decorator
component {Undecorated Component} [{vis}, {mat}]

// Dependencies (preserve all)
{Parent}->{Child}

// Mismatch notes — one per mismatched component
note +MISMATCH: {stage} but {strategy} [{vis}, {mat}]
note +Deliberate: see play {slug} [{vis}, {mat}]
note +No execution strategy assigned [{vis}, {mat}]

// Annotations for mismatch clusters
annotation 1 [{vis}, {mat}] {Mismatch cluster summary}
annotations [0.90, 0.03]

style wardley

Guidelines:

• Preserve all components and dependencies for full context.
• Use notes on every mismatched component explaining the mismatch. Prefix with + for emphasis.
• Distinguish deliberate from accidental mismatches in the notes. Deliberate mismatches should reference the justifying play.
• Mark undecorated components with notes recommending a strategy.
• Use annotations for clusters of related mismatches.

Step 6: Write analysis

Write atlas/evolution-mismatch/analysis.md:

# Evolution-Execution Mismatch Analysis

## Summary

| Category | Count | Components |
|----------|-------|-----------|
| Aligned | {n} | {list} |
| Boundary (acceptable) | {n} | {list} |
| Mismatched (deliberate) | {n} | {list} |
| Mismatched (unintentional) | {n} | {list} |
| No decorator | {n} | {list} |

## Mismatches

### {Component name}

**Position**: [{vis}, {mat}] — {evolution stage}
**Current execution**: {build/buy/outsource}
**Expected execution**: {what the alignment model says}
**Mismatch type**: Over-investing / Under-investing / Wrong engagement
**Deliberate?**: Yes (see play {slug}) / No

**Cost of this mismatch**: {What is the organisation paying for this
misalignment? Higher costs than necessary? Lost competitive advantage?
Unnecessary risk? Slower evolution?}

**Correction path**: {What would it take to align execution with
evolution? Vendor selection, in-house team, migration project? What
are the transition costs and timeline?}

## Missing execution strategies

| Component | Position | Stage | Recommended | Reasoning |
|-----------|----------|-------|-------------|-----------|
| {name}    | [{v},{m}] | {stage} | {build/buy/outsource} | {why} |

## Cost analysis

**Total over-investment**: {Components where the organisation spends
more than necessary by custom-building or buying what could be
outsourced as utility.}

**Total under-investment**: {Components where the organisation risks
competitive disadvantage by outsourcing or buying what should be
built for differentiation.}

## Deliberate mismatches

{For each deliberate mismatch: restate the justification from the
play. Is the justification still valid? What would change if the
mismatch were corrected?}

## Recommendations

{Prioritised list of corrections. Start with the highest-cost
unintentional mismatches. For each, state the current state, target
state, and first concrete step.}

Step 7: Render

bin/ensure-owm.sh clients/{org}/projects/{slug}/atlas/evolution-mismatch/map.owm

Output

Present the summary table and SVG first, then offer the detailed per-component analysis. Highlight unintentional mismatches as the primary actionable finding. This is a derived view -- no client agreement gate is needed.

After completion, regenerate the deliverable site:

bin/render-site.sh clients/{org}/projects/{slug}/