Neura Market Ideation Method Reference

Purpose and When to Use

This library provides ideation methods that generate specific, non-obvious output for any open-ended creative or selective question. Methods are tools; pick the right one for the situation, do not perform all.

Use this system when you encounter any of these situations:

"I want to make / build / write / start something"
"I'm stuck"
"inspire me"
"make this weirder"
"help me pick"
"I need to invent X"
"give me a research question"

Core Capabilities

The system routes a user's situation to a matching ideation method based on phase, domain, and specificity. It generates output that is specific (real proper nouns, materials, mechanisms) and non-obvious. To avoid generic output, it refuses the first three ideas (or five on slop terrain). It applies one method per response unless the user asks for multiple. The system names the method used and its inventor to invoke discipline. When the user picks an idea, it builds out that idea and stops generating. It handles mood signals (weird, strange, surprising) by overriding default routing. It stacks two methods explicitly when signals contradict (e.g., weird + product domain). It asks one clarifying question when genuinely ambiguous. It switches methods if the same question is asked again.

Parameters

Phase

The stage the user is in: GENERATING, EXPANDING, SELECTING, UNBLOCKING, SUBVERTING, REFINING, SYNTHESIZING. This parameter is required and extracted from the prompt in Step 1 of the routing procedure.

Domain

What the user is making or doing: TEXT, OBJECT, ARTIFACT, SYSTEM, SELF, RESEARCH, PRODUCT. This parameter is required and extracted from the prompt in Step 1.

Specificity

How much constraint is in the prompt: NONE, DOMAIN, PROJECT, PROBLEM. This parameter is required and extracted from the prompt in Step 1.

Mood Signal

The user says "weird", "strange", "surprising", "less obvious", "more interesting". This overrides default routing. It is not required; if present, apply the override in Step 2 of the routing procedure.

User-Named Method

The user explicitly names a method to use. It is not required; if present, use that method in Step 2.

Method Recommendation Request

The user asks "which method". Surface 2-3 candidates with a one-line description each, ask which to apply. It is not required; if present, handle in Step 2.

High-Slop Terrain

The prompt involves AI ideas, startup ideas, habit tracker, productivity, wellness, fitness, food, or travel app. It is not required; if present, force lateral-provocations or pataphysics in Step 2 and refuse the first 5 ideas.

Routing Procedure

Perform this 4-step procedure before generating any output. Routing failures produce slop.

Step 1: Extract Three Signals

Extract from the prompt: PHASE (GENERATING, EXPANDING, SELECTING, UNBLOCKING, SUBVERTING, REFINING, SYNTHESIZING), DOMAIN (TEXT, OBJECT, ARTIFACT, SYSTEM, SELF, RESEARCH, PRODUCT), SPECIFICITY (NONE, DOMAIN, PROJECT, PROBLEM). Use the provided cue tables in references/heuristics.md.

Step 2: Apply Overrides

These have highest priority and fire first:

Mood signal (weird, strange, etc.): use lateral-provocations or pataphysics regardless of domain.
User names a method: use it.
User asks for method recommendation: surface 2-3 candidates with one-line each, ask which to apply.
High-slop terrain (AI/startup/habit tracker/productivity/wellness/fitness/food/travel app): force lateral-provocations or pataphysics; refuse first 5 ideas.

Step 3: Route by Phase Then Domain

Use the phase table. For example:

GENERATING + SPECIFICITY=NONE: route to references/full-prompt-library.md General section.
GENERATING + DOMAIN known: route by domain table.
TEXT formal/poetry: route to references/methods/oulipo.md.
ARTIFACT with parameter conflict: route to references/methods/triz-principles.md.
SYSTEM civic: route to references/methods/leverage-points.md.

Step 4: Handle Ambiguity and Contradiction

Multiple paths plausible: pick closest to user's actual phrasing.
Genuinely ambiguous: ask ONE clarifying question (e.g., "Are you generating or picking?").
Signals contradict: stack two methods explicitly, state what you're doing.
No match: constraint dispatch (references/full-prompt-library.md) as safe fallback.
Same question asked again: switch methods.

Anti-Default Check

Run this before generating:

About to write "Here are 5 ideas:" or a bare numbered list? STOP. Pick a method first.
About to default to generic LLM-mode brainstorming? STOP. Pick a path above.
Output looks like what an unrouted LLM would produce? Routing failed, redo.

Method Routing by Phase and Domain

Phase-Based Routing

GENERATING + SPECIFICITY=NONE: route to references/full-prompt-library.md General section (constraint dispatch).
GENERATING + DOMAIN known (e.g., TEXT formal/poetry): route to references/methods/oulipo.md.
EXPANDING: route to references/methods/scamper.md.
SELECTING: route to references/methods/premortem-and-inversion.md or references/methods/compression-progress.md (for upside).
UNBLOCKING: route to references/methods/oblique-strategies.md.
SUBVERTING: route to references/methods/lateral-provocations.md (fallback references/methods/pataphysics.md).
REFINING (text): route to references/methods/defamiliarization.md.
REFINING (other): route to references/methods/creative-discipline.md (Tharp's spine).
SYNTHESIZING: route to references/methods/affinity-diagrams.md.
Volume needed fast: route to references/methods/volume-generation.md.

Domain-Based Routing

TEXT formal/poetry: references/methods/oulipo.md
TEXT narrative: references/methods/story-skeletons.md
TEXT remix: references/methods/chance-and-remix.md
ARTIFACT with parameter conflict: references/methods/triz-principles.md
ARTIFACT spatial: references/methods/pattern-languages.md
ARTIFACT biological: references/methods/biomimicry.md
SYSTEM abstract: references/methods/first-principles.md
SYSTEM civic: references/methods/leverage-points.md
SYSTEM mapping: references/methods/derive-and-mapping.md
RESEARCH problem: references/methods/polya.md
PRODUCT: references/methods/jobs-to-be-done.md
Any domain: references/methods/analogy-and-blending.md

Constraints and Caveats

Constraint plus direction is creativity: no constraint equals no traction, no direction equals no shape. Methods supply both.

Refuse the first three ideas (or five on slop terrain). They are slop. Generate, discard, regenerate.

One method per response unless user asks for multiple.

Specificity over abstraction: use real proper nouns, real materials, real mechanisms. "An app for X" is slop; "a 200-line CLI tool that prints Y when Z" is direction. Naming a tech stack is not specificity. Name a mechanism.

Weird must also be good: frame-breaking is the goal, but an idea that is strange with no real situation, mechanism, or reason to exist is its own failure mode. Every set of ideas must include at least one that is genuinely buildable or pursuable now. It should be non-obvious but grounded, with a real first step. Do not trade all usefulness for surprise.

Name the method you used and who invented it. Attribution invokes the discipline.

When the user picks one, build it. Do not keep generating after they have chosen.

You may skip narrating the routing steps if it is cleaner, but never compress at the cost of per-idea depth: each idea's concrete mechanism, situational binding, and honest failure mode are what make output good (measured). They are not scaffolding. Do not cut them.

For the constraint-dispatch default path, use the specified output format. For other methods, use the format the method specifies (e.g., TRIZ contradiction analysis, OuLiPo constrained text, Oblique Strategies single applied card). Do not force every method into the constraint template.

Every idea set, regardless of method:

Name the method used. On slop terrain, name the obvious ideas you refused.
Give each idea its concrete mechanism and its honest failure mode, tradeoff, or who it is for.
Mark at least one idea as the grounded one. It should be buildable or pursuable now, non-obvious but with a real first step. Do not let the whole set be weird-but-impractical.

Constraint Dispatch Output Format

When using the constraint-dispatch default path, use this exact format:

Constraint: [Name] — from [Source]

[The constraint, one sentence]

Ideas

[One-line pitch] [2-3 sentences — what specifically is made, why it's interesting] ⏱ [weekend/week/month] • 🔧 [stack/medium/materials]
...
...

Failure Modes

Routing failures produce slop. Do routing before generating any output.
Generating without routing defeats the skill. Default LLM mode is exactly what this skill exists to displace.
Output that looks like what an unrouted LLM would produce means routing failed. Redo.
About to write "Here are 5 ideas:" or a bare numbered list without picking a method first? STOP.
About to default to generic LLM-mode brainstorming without picking a path? STOP.
Trading all usefulness for surprise (weird but no real situation, mechanism, or reason to exist) is its own failure mode.
Naming a tech stack without naming a mechanism is not specificity.
Compressing per-idea depth (concrete mechanism, situational binding, honest failure mode) at the cost of routing narration is not allowed. These are not scaffolding. Do not cut them.
Silently guessing when genuinely ambiguous (instead of asking one clarifying question) leads to misrouting.
Picking the most interesting method to seem sophisticated instead of the one closest to user's actual phrasing is a failure.
Using the same method when the same question is asked again. Switch methods for variation.

Prerequisites

Access to these references:

references/full-prompt-library.md (constraint library, sectioned by domain)
references/method-catalog.md (one-line summary plus when-to-use per method)
references/heuristics.md (extended decision tree for edge cases)
references/anti-slop.md (anti-slop rules)
references/exercises.md (time-boxed exercises)
22 method files in references/methods/ (load only the one being used)

The user prompt must be provided to extract phase, domain, and specificity signals.

Constraint-dispatch core adapted from wttdotm.com/prompts.html. Methods drawn from primary sources cited in each method file.

Available Method Files

All method files are located in references/methods/:

references/methods/lateral-provocations.md
references/methods/pataphysics.md
references/methods/scamper.md
references/methods/premortem-and-inversion.md
references/methods/compression-progress.md
references/methods/oblique-strategies.md
references/methods/defamiliarization.md
references/methods/creative-discipline.md
references/methods/affinity-diagrams.md
references/methods/volume-generation.md
references/methods/oulipo.md
references/methods/story-skeletons.md
references/methods/chance-and-remix.md
references/methods/triz-principles.md
references/methods/pattern-languages.md
references/methods/biomimicry.md
references/methods/first-principles.md
references/methods/leverage-points.md
references/methods/derive-and-mapping.md
references/methods/polya.md
references/methods/jobs-to-be-done.md
references/methods/analogy-and-blending.md

Method Stacking for Contradicting Signals

When signals contradict (e.g., "weird startup ideas"), stack two methods explicitly and state what you are doing. For example, stack jobs-to-be-done (product framing) with lateral-provocations (break obvious shape).

Creative Ideation: A Practical Guide to Structured Idea Generation