I Just Got My First Solutions Report - Now What?

Quick answer: Read the 6-model adversarial debate first (CFO, COO, Market Realist, Game Theorist, Chief Strategist, Wildcard - each challenges the others’ assumptions). Look for consensus (if 4+ models agree, high confidence). Check Risk Assessment section for key risks + mitigation strategies. Choose the #1 prioritized recommendation. In the next week: validate the recommendation with stakeholders, create implementation plan. In the next month: execute the recommendation, measure results. Don’t ignore dissenting perspectives (Wildcard and Game Theorist catch edge cases).

Reading time: 12 minutes

In this guide:

• Understand the 6-model debate by reading each perspective to see how CFO focuses on ROI/financial risk, COO on execution feasibility, Market Realist on competitive timing, Game Theorist on strategic dynamics, Chief Strategist on goal alignment, and Wildcard on unconventional risks
• Look for consensus to gauge confidence where 4-6 models agreeing means high confidence (implement recommendation), 3-3 split means trade-offs exist (decide based on your priorities), and no agreement means question needs refinement
• Review Risk Assessment section for implementation planning by identifying the 3-5 key risks that could derail your recommendation and adding the specific mitigation strategies (monthly monitoring, quarterly reviews, budget reserves) to your execution plan
• Choose your recommendation using the prioritized list where #1 is default choice (synthesizes all perspectives), #2-3 are alternatives for when your priorities differ (higher risk tolerance, budget changed, competitor moved), validated against your actual assumptions
• Validate and implement within one week by sharing the report with stakeholders for buy-in, creating detailed implementation plan with milestones/budget/team assignments, securing formal approval, and avoiding common mistakes (dismissing Wildcard, cherry-picking agreeable models, skipping mitigation strategies)

You just opened the PDF and see 6 different AI perspectives debating your question. Here’s how to make sense of it.

---

Step 1: Understand the 6-Model Debate (10 Minutes)

Your Solutions report shows 6 AI models analyzing your question from different perspectives. Think of it like a board meeting with 6 executives challenging each other.

CFO Perspective (Financial Lens)

What they focus on: ROI, cost, financial risk, budget constraints

Example view:

“Hybrid approach reduces financial risk. $30k AI visibility + $20k SEO = $50k total investment. ROI uncertain but downside limited. If AI visibility fails, we still have SEO foundation.”

When CFO agrees with a recommendation: High financial viability (good ROI, acceptable risk)

When CFO disagrees: Too expensive, uncertain ROI, or financial risk too high

Your takeaway: If CFO is skeptical, double-check your budget and ROI assumptions

---

COO Perspective (Operational Lens)

What they focus on: Execution feasibility, team bandwidth, operational complexity

Example view:

“Hybrid approach increases execution complexity - two parallel workstreams (AI team + SEO team). Need strong project manager to coordinate. Higher risk of execution delays.”

When COO agrees: Operationally realistic (team has capacity, process is clear)

When COO disagrees: Too complex to execute, team lacks skills, or timeline unrealistic

Your takeaway: If COO is skeptical, assess whether your team can actually execute this

---

Market Realist Perspective (Competitive Lens)

What they focus on: Competitive timing, market trends, customer behavior

Example view:

“Competitors already at 40-60% Presence Rate. Hybrid approach won’t close gap fast enough. By the time we reach 35%, competitors will be at 70%. Aggressive AI-only approach needed to catch up.”

When Market Realist agrees: Market timing is right, competitive dynamics favorable

When Market Realist disagrees: Competitors moving faster, or market shifting away from this approach

Your takeaway: If Market Realist is skeptical, check what competitors are doing (are you too slow or too fast?)

---

Game Theorist Perspective (Strategic Dynamics)

What they focus on: Competitive response, strategic positioning, game theory

Example view:

“If competitors invest in AI visibility while we do hybrid, they gain first-mover advantage. By the time we pivot to aggressive, competitors have locked in top positions. Go aggressive now or risk permanent #2-3 position.”

When Game Theorist agrees: Strategic positioning sound, competitive response anticipated

When Game Theorist disagrees: Competitors will counter your move, or you’re playing wrong game

Your takeaway: If Game Theorist is skeptical, think through “what happens after we make this move?”

---

Chief Strategist Perspective (Alignment Lens)

What they focus on: Goal alignment, strategic optionality, mid-course correction ability

Example view:

“Hybrid aligns with risk tolerance and budget. Allows mid-course pivot: if 3-month results show strong AI visibility ROI, reallocate SEO budget to AI. If weak results, double down on SEO. Strategic optionality > commitment to single path.”

When Chief Strategist agrees: Recommendation aligns with goals and preserves optionality

When Chief Strategist disagrees: Recommendation conflicts with stated goals or locks you into bad path

Your takeaway: If Chief Strategist is skeptical, revisit whether this recommendation actually serves your goals

---

Wildcard Perspective (Edge Cases)

What they focus on: Unconventional risks, black swan events, assumptions that might break

Example view:

“What if AI platforms change algorithms mid-campaign? OpenAI just updated ChatGPT 3 times this quarter. Your $30k AI visibility investment could become worthless overnight. SEO is more stable - algorithms change slowly. Hedge with hybrid.”

When Wildcard agrees: Edge cases considered, downside risks mitigated

When Wildcard disagrees: Unconventional risk not accounted for, or assumption will likely break

Your takeaway: Don’t dismiss Wildcard easily - they often catch risks everyone else missed

---

Step 2: Look for Consensus (5 Minutes)

High confidence = 4-6 models agree on same recommendation

Medium confidence = 3 models agree, 3 disagree (split decision)

Low confidence = No clear consensus (each model recommends something different)

If You Have High Consensus (4-6 Models Agree):

What it means: Recommendation is solid across multiple perspectives (financial, operational, competitive, strategic)

Your action: Implement with confidence. Edge cases exist (Wildcard may point them out) but overall recommendation is sound.

Example:

• CFO: “Hybrid makes financial sense”
• COO: “Hybrid is operationally feasible”
• Market Realist: “Hybrid addresses competitive gap adequately”
• Chief Strategist: “Hybrid aligns with goals and preserves optionality”
• (Game Theorist disagrees: “Too slow”, Wildcard disagrees: “Algorithm risk”)

Decision: Implement hybrid (4 out of 6 agree = high confidence)

---

If You Have Medium Consensus (3-3 Split):

What it means: Trade-offs exist. No “perfect” answer. Depends on your priorities (risk tolerance, speed, budget).

Your action: Decide based on which perspectives matter most to you.

Example:

• Aggressive camp (Game Theorist, Market Realist, Wildcard): “Go aggressive AI-only, catch up fast”
• Conservative camp (CFO, COO, Chief Strategist): “Go hybrid, reduce risk”

Decision: If you’re risk-averse, follow CFO/COO/Chief Strategist (conservative). If you’re willing to bet big, follow Game Theorist/Market Realist (aggressive).

---

If You Have Low Consensus (No Agreement):

What it means: Your question may be too vague, or situation is genuinely ambiguous (more research needed)

Your action: Either refine question and run Solutions again, or gather more data before deciding.

Example: All 6 models give different recommendations (one says “hybrid”, one says “all AI”, one says “all SEO”, one says “wait and see”)

Decision: Don’t pick randomly. Either clarify your question or run Signal/Scan to get quantitative data, then run Solutions again with data.

---

Step 3: Read the Risk Assessment (5 Minutes)

Find this section in your report: Usually page 4-6, labeled “Risk Assessment”

Key Risks

What it shows: Top 3-5 risks that could derail your chosen recommendation

Example:

1. “AI platform algorithm changes” (could make AI visibility investment worthless)
2. “Competitive response faster than execution” (competitors move while you’re planning)
3. “Budget reallocation challenges if pivot needed” (CFO may not approve mid-course changes)

Your action: For each risk, ask “How likely is this?” and “How bad if it happens?”

If risk is likely + severe: Mitigation strategy becomes mandatory (not optional)

---

Mitigation Strategies

What it shows: Actions to reduce risk probability or impact

Example:

1. “Monthly Presence Rate monitoring (Signal)” → catches algorithm changes early
2. “Quarterly strategy review with pivot option” → allows mid-course correction
3. “Reserve 10% budget for opportunistic adjustments” → creates flexibility

Your action: Add mitigation strategies to your implementation plan (don’t skip these)

---

Step 4: Choose Your Recommendation (10 Minutes)

Find this section: Usually page 2-3, labeled “Prioritized Recommendations”

Recommendation #1 (Highest Priority)

What it is: The option Solutions ranks as best fit based on 6-model debate

Why it’s #1: Synthesizes all perspectives (balances financial, operational, competitive, strategic concerns)

Your default choice: Unless you have strong reason to disagree, go with #1

---

Recommendation #2-3 (Alternatives)

What they are: Runner-up options, usually representing different risk/reward profiles

When to choose #2 or #3:

• Your priorities differ from assumptions (e.g., Solutions assumes risk-averse, but you’re willing to bet big → choose aggressive #2)
• Your context changed since running Solutions (e.g., competitor just made big move → choose reactive #3)
• You have information Solutions didn’t (e.g., budget just increased → choose expensive #2)

---

How to Decide

Ask yourself:

1. Do I agree with the assumptions? (If Solutions assumed $50k budget but I have $100k, recommendations may change)
2. Which perspectives matter most to me? (If I’m CFO, I care about financial lens most. If I’m founder, I care about Game Theorist most.)
3. What’s my risk tolerance? (Risk-averse → choose CFO/COO-endorsed option. Risk-seeking → choose Game Theorist-endorsed option)

If unsure: Go with Recommendation #1 (default)

---

Step 5: What to Do This Week

Day 1: Validate with Stakeholders (2-3 Hours)

Don’t implement alone. Get buy-in from key stakeholders.

Process:

1. Share Solutions report (or executive summary) with:
   • CFO (if budget decision)
   • Team leads (if execution decision)
   • CEO/founder (if strategic decision)
2. Highlight:
   • Chosen recommendation (#1)
   • Why 4-6 models agree (builds confidence)
   • Key risks + mitigation strategies
3. Ask for objections:
   • “Do you see risks Solutions missed?”
   • “Are our assumptions correct?” (budget, timeline, competitive landscape)

If stakeholders agree: Proceed to implementation

If stakeholders disagree: Understand why. Either adjust recommendation or gather more data.

---

Day 2-3: Create Implementation Plan (4-6 Hours)

Turn recommendation into action steps.

Template:

1. Objective: (What are we trying to achieve?)

   • Example: “Improve Presence Rate from 28% to 40% in 6 months via hybrid AI visibility + SEO approach”

2. Budget allocation: (How much to each workstream?)

   • Example: “$30k AI visibility (60%), $20k SEO (40%)”

3. Timeline: (Milestones + deadlines)

   • Month 1: Schema markup + persona content (AI visibility)
   • Month 2: Backlink building + technical SEO
   • Month 3: Measure Signal, adjust allocation

4. Team assignments: (Who owns what?)

   • Marketing manager: AI visibility workstream
   • SEO specialist: SEO workstream
   • Project manager: Coordinate both

5. Success metrics: (How do we know it’s working?)

   • Presence Rate: 28% → 40% (6-month goal)
   • Authority Score: 68 → 75+
   • Competitive ranking: #5 → #3

6. Risk mitigation: (From Solutions report)

   • Monthly Signal monitoring (catch algorithm changes)
   • Quarterly strategy review (pivot if needed)
   • 10% budget reserve (opportunistic adjustments)

---

Day 4-5: Secure Budget + Resources (2-4 Hours)

Get formal approval.

If budget required:

• CFO approval email (attach Solutions report as justification)
• Budget request form (show ROI projections from Solutions)

If team resources required:

• Assign team members to workstreams
• Clear calendars for implementation time
• Set up project management tool (Asana, Trello, etc.)

If vendor/consultant required:

• Get quotes (SEO agency, content writer, developer)
• Compare to Solutions budget assumptions
• Negotiate contracts

---

Step 6: What NOT to Do (Common Mistakes)

Don’t Dismiss the Wildcard Perspective

Why this is a mistake: Wildcard catches edge cases everyone else missed. Ignoring them = getting blindsided by unconventional risks.

Example: Solutions says “invest $50k in AI visibility.” Wildcard warns “AI platforms could change algorithms mid-campaign.” You ignore Wildcard. 3 months later, ChatGPT updates algorithm, your Presence Rate drops. $50k wasted.

What to do instead: Take Wildcard seriously. Add their mitigation strategies to your plan (e.g., “monthly Signal monitoring to catch algorithm changes early”).

---

Don’t Cherry-Pick the Model That Agrees with You

Why this is a mistake: Confirmation bias. You ignore perspectives that challenge your assumptions, leading to bad decisions.

Example: You want to invest aggressively in AI visibility. Game Theorist agrees. CFO disagrees (financial risk too high). You only read Game Theorist section, ignore CFO. You over-invest, run out of budget, can’t pivot.

What to do instead: Read all 6 perspectives, especially ones that disagree with you. They often catch risks you’re not considering.

---

Don’t Implement Without Validating Assumptions

Why this is a mistake: Solutions makes assumptions (budget, timeline, competitive landscape). If assumptions are wrong, recommendations are wrong.

Example: Solutions assumes “$50k budget available.” You actually have $30k. Recommendation #1 (hybrid $50k approach) is unaffordable. Recommendation #2 (lean $30k approach) would’ve been better.

What to do instead: Check all assumptions in Solutions report. If any are wrong, adjust recommendation or run Solutions again with correct assumptions.

---

Don’t Skip Risk Mitigation Strategies

Why this is a mistake: Mitigation strategies aren’t optional nice-to-haves. They’re insurance against key risks.

Example: Solutions says “monthly Signal monitoring” to catch algorithm changes. You skip it (saves $50/month). Algorithm changes, you don’t notice for 6 months, Presence Rate drops 20%. Lost 6 months of progress.

What to do instead: Add all mitigation strategies to implementation plan. Budget for them (Signal monitoring, quarterly reviews, etc.).

---

Don’t Treat Solutions as Final Answer

Why this is a mistake: Solutions provides analysis, not guarantees. It’s strategic guidance, not certainty.

Example: Solutions says “Recommendation #1 will improve Presence Rate to 35-42%.” You expect exactly 38.5%. Reality: You hit 33% (algorithm changed, competitive response faster than expected).

What to do instead: Treat recommendations as hypotheses to test. Monitor results monthly (Signal), adjust if needed. Solutions gives you a strong starting point, not a guaranteed outcome.

---

Step 7: When to Run Solutions Again

After Major Results (3-6 Months)

When: You implemented Recommendation #1, measured results

Why: Results may differ from expectations (better or worse)

New question: “Original recommendation was [X]. We achieved [Y results]. Should we continue current approach, pivot, or double down?”

Example: Solutions recommended hybrid ($30k AI + $20k SEO). After 3 months, AI visibility ROI is 3× better than SEO. New question: “Should we reallocate $20k SEO budget to AI visibility?”

---

Before Major New Decisions

When: New strategic decision arises (different from original question)

Why: Each decision deserves fresh analysis (context changes)

Examples:

• Original question: “AI visibility vs SEO budget allocation”
• New question 6 months later: “Should we hire in-house SEO specialist or continue with agency?”
• New question 12 months later: “Should we expand to 3 new markets or consolidate current market?”

---

When Competitive Landscape Shifts

When: Major competitor makes big move, market disruption occurs

Why: Competitive dynamics changed, original recommendation may no longer be optimal

Example: Solutions recommended “patient 6-month approach” based on stable competitive landscape. 2 months later, competitor acquires $5M funding, goes aggressive. New question: “Competitor just raised $5M and hired 20-person marketing team. Should we accelerate our timeline or pivot strategy?”

---

Step 8: Common Questions

All 6 models gave different recommendations. Which do I choose?

This means your question is genuinely ambiguous (no clear “right” answer). Either:

1. Gather more data (run Signal/Scan for quantitative context), then run Solutions again with data
2. Refine your question (be more specific about constraints, goals, timeline)
3. Accept ambiguity and choose based on your risk tolerance (CFO = conservative, Game Theorist = aggressive)

CFO and COO both say “too risky” but I want to do it anyway. Should I?

Proceed with caution. CFO + COO skepticism = execution and financial risk are real. Either:

1. Mitigate risks they identified (reduce budget, extend timeline, build MVP first)
2. Accept risk and have backup plan (if it fails, what’s plan B?)
3. Don’t do it (sometimes “don’t do it” is the right answer)

Solutions recommended Option A but I prefer Option B. Can I ignore Solutions?

Yes. Solutions provides analysis, not mandates. If you have strong conviction + information Solutions doesn’t have, follow your judgment. Just understand why you’re disagreeing (is it based on new data or confirmation bias?).

Should I share Solutions report with my team?

Yes, especially if decision requires buy-in. Full report shows all perspectives (builds trust that analysis was thorough). If team is non-technical, share executive summary (Recommendation #1 + key risks).

What if I provided Signal/Scan token for quantitative analysis - how do I interpret that section?

Look for how quantitative data influenced recommendations. Example: “Your Signal shows 28% Presence Rate, 68 Authority Score. CFO model prioritizes fixing Authority Score first (bigger ROI than general Presence Rate increase).” Quant data makes recommendations more tailored to your specific situation.

How much does it cost to run Solutions again if I need to?

$50 per report. You can run Solutions multiple times (initial decision, 3-month review, 6-month pivot decision, etc.).

What if something went wrong with my Solutions report?

We have automatic refund systems if something goes wrong. If that doesn’t work, reach out to hi@surmado.com - we’ll make it right.

---

Automation

Solutions can be triggered via API for programmatic strategic reviews.

Next Steps

This week (8-12 hours):

• Read 6-model debate (identify consensus)
• Review Risk Assessment (note key risks + mitigation strategies)
• Choose recommendation (#1 default, unless strong reason for #2-3)
• Validate with stakeholders (CFO, team leads, CEO)
• Create implementation plan (objectives, budget, timeline, team, metrics, risk mitigation)
• Secure budget + resources

This month (execute):

• Implement recommendation
• Add risk mitigation strategies (monthly Signal, quarterly reviews, budget reserve)
• Monitor early results (leading indicators, not just final Presence Rate)

In 3-6 months (measure):

• Run Signal again (if AI visibility decision)
• Run Scan again (if website decision)
• Compare actual results to expected results (from Solutions)
• Run Solutions again if major pivot needed

Need help? Contact hi@surmado.com with your Intelligence Token and specific questions about your recommendation. If something went wrong with your report, we’ll make it right.

---

Want to test the recommendation with quantitative data? Run Signal or Scan, then run Solutions again with Intelligence Token for quantitative analysis. Or run Solutions again in 3-6 months after implementing Recommendation #1 to decide next steps.