Why compromise is a loss
Most product disputes look like bargaining: "let's do it faster but worse" or "let's do it better but longer". Compromise does not resolve the contradiction — it splits the losses between the sides. On the page of Super Oracle the TRIZ method is described exactly this way: every solution creates a new problem, and the task of the method is not to choose between two options but to find a third.
Step 1: name the system and the function
The first step is an exact formulation. This is the "Formulation" stage of the agent's process: specify the system (what exactly you are solving), the useful function (what must work) and the undesirable effect (what breaks when the property is strengthened). Example: "the contract review must be deep (function) but fast (constraint)".
Step 2: separate the conflict from the symptoms
Next comes the "Contradiction" stage: separate the conflict of properties from the symptoms and the constraints. The symptom is "the lawyers cannot keep up"; the conflict is "the depth of the review and the speed of the review grow in opposite directions". Until the conflict is named explicitly, the team will argue about the symptoms. The classic formula: "X must be Y and at the same time not-Y".
Step 3: demand 'both/and'
Then — reject compromise as an option. Formulate the requirement: get both properties without sacrificing anything, and start sorting through the inventive principles: divide in time, divide in structure, take away the interfering part, transfer the function to another object. In the simulation example with a law firm on the page of Super Oracle the contradiction "AI or secrecy?" was resolved into "AI and secrecy" — fully local analysis without external integrations, where the data remains on the customer's computer.
Note: the examples on the site are honestly marked as a simulation on typical tasks; the live cases will appear after the first 10 runs — the same honesty that the method demands of the formulations.
What you get at the output
The result of the work is the contradiction card: the system, the function, the conflict of properties and 2-3 directions of the solution without compromise with an explanation of the applied principles. This is exactly the artifact that Super Oracle produces at the stage of TRIZ analysis as part of a session of five methods. About how to turn the directions into verifiable tests — in the article "From contradiction to test".
Questions and answers
What if "both/and" cannot be found?
Then the contradiction is formulated imprecisely. Go back to step 2: most often the obstacle is a symptom mistaken for the conflict.
Does TRIZ ensure the novelty of the solution?
No: Super Oracle does not perform a patent search and does not promise novelty. The proposals require engineering and product evaluation.
Is TRIZ suitable for non-technical tasks?
Yes: contradictions exist in processes, service and business models — the method works with the conflict of properties, not only with technology.
What is a contradiction card?
The fixation of the system, the useful function and the undesirable effect: the conflict of properties without compromise.
Why is compromise a weak solution?
Compromise trades properties; the contradiction is sought so that both properties are strengthened at the same time.
How does the move "AI or secrecy" → "AI and secrecy" work?
It is an example of resolving the conflict of properties without choosing one of the sides — in detail in the article.
What does the team get at the output?
The model of the contradiction, several fundamentally different directions, assumptions and risks.
Is technical knowledge required?
For non-technical tasks it is enough to describe the conflict of properties of the process or the service.
Is the novelty of the solution checked?
No: Super Oracle does not perform a patent search and does not promise novelty.