Design Brief: Personal vs. Business Scenarios¶
Date: 2026-03-31 Updated: 2026-04-01 (revised based on two-product framing from April design brief) Status: Narrowed — Solo-only feature, Phase 2 Roadmap: Planned — Requires Scale / Data Related: ADR-013 (Deliberative Baseline), ADR-014 (Relational Proximity), April 2026 Design Brief
The Observation¶
CoachJ's DTA profile says he's pragmatic, risk-averse, and expert-dependent. But that's only the business version of him. In personal life he explores legal gray areas, takes investment risks, makes immigration decisions in ambiguous territory, and is far less cautious. After 37+ games, the DTA knows the governance proxy — but not the person.
From the March 23 transcript:
"When I read this, I'm like, this sounds right maybe from a business perspective, but is this how I live my life personally? I don't know. I'm not that risk-adverse. I take quite a few risks in legal things. I tend to explore gray areas a lot more in my life with investing, with immigration stuff."
The Core Question¶
Should Sync include personal/relational dilemmas alongside business ones? And if so, how do they relate to the governance DTA?
Key Constraint: The Two-Product Framing¶
The April 2026 design brief established that Sync is effectively two products:
- Multiplayer Sync — the near-term product. Value is team cohesion and structured debrief. GTM is 45-minute sessions with outside dev teams, DAOs, and organizations. Does not require the DTA story.
- Solo Sync — the longer-term DTA training tool. Value compounds over 40+ rounds. Target audience is self-knowledge-motivated players, researchers, academics.
This resolves the biggest open question: personal scenarios do NOT belong in multiplayer. Asking strangers or professional teammates to reveal personal financial decisions or relationship conflict patterns is off-putting and off-topic for a team cohesion product. The multiplayer scenario pool must stay professional/organizational.
Personal scenarios are a Solo-only feature. Solo is where self-knowledge matters, where there are no privacy concerns (you're only showing yourself), and where the DTA-as-full-representation vision lives. This simplifies the design significantly.
Why This Still Matters (for Solo)¶
1. The DTA is an incomplete portrait¶
DAO governance increasingly involves personal stakes — token holdings affect personal wealth, contributor agreements affect personal time, community conflicts affect personal relationships. A DTA that only knows your boardroom persona may make decisions that your whole self wouldn't endorse.
2. The divergence is the insight¶
The gap between personal-you and business-you is itself valuable information. If you're risk-seeking personally but risk-averse professionally, that tells the DTA something important about context-dependence. This is a unique product feature — "Play Sync and discover the gap between your work self and personal self."
3. Solo engagement¶
Solo currently has no strong hook in round one (per the April brief). Personal scenarios could be that hook — they're more immediately engaging than abstract business dilemmas because they're about you, not a fictional VP of Engineering.
Revised Design Options (Solo-Only)¶
~~Option A: Separate "Personal Mode" Track~~ → Simplified¶
How it works (revised): - In Solo, the scenario generator sometimes produces personal dilemmas - Controlled by an intake preference: "Do you want your DTA to learn about personal decisions too?" - Personal scenarios feed a separate personal profile layer — NOT the governance DTA - Profile page shows both: "Work Self" vs. "Personal Self" with divergences highlighted - No separate mode toggle needed — just a category expansion in the solo generator with a personal flag
Pros: - Clean separation — governance DTA stays pure (per ADR-013) - The divergence view is a compelling product feature for solo players - No multiplayer complexity - Opt-in via intake, so players who don't care simply never see personal scenarios
Cons: - Two profile layers to maintain - Solo-only means limited data from multiplayer-focused players
~~Option B: Mixed Pool~~ → Eliminated¶
Mixing personal and business scenarios in one profile muddies the governance signal. Rejected by the two-product framing.
Option C: Context Enrichment (Still Viable)¶
How it works: - Personal scenarios offered occasionally in solo (1 in 5 games) - Don't feed driver distributions or sync score - Feed a personal context layer that modulates predictions: "risk-averse at work but risk-seeking personally → in governance decisions with personal financial exposure, may lean risk-tolerant"
Pros: Lightest implementation, governance DTA stays pure Cons: "Modulation logic" is complex, slow data accumulation
~~Option D: Defer~~ → Current Status¶
We are currently in Option D. The question is what to build when we exit it.
Revised Recommendation¶
Option A (simplified, solo-only) with opt-in at intake.
The two-product framing makes this clean:
1. Add an intake question: "Do you want your DTA to learn about personal decisions too?"
2. If yes, solo scenario generator includes personal categories (~20% of scenarios)
3. Personal choices feed a separate personal_profile layer, not the governance DTA
4. Profile page shows divergence: "Work Self vs. Personal Self"
5. Multiplayer is unaffected — always professional scenarios
Do not build until: 50+ players and validation that solo players want this (per April brief).
Personal Scenario Categories (to design)¶
Not all personal domains are equally relevant. Prioritize by governance adjacency:
| Category | Governance Adjacency | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Personal finance / investment risk | High — directly relates to treasury decisions | "You have $50K in savings. A friend's startup needs angel investment..." |
| Community / social obligation | High — relates to DAO community dynamics | "Your neighborhood association is voting on a controversial policy..." |
| Career / professional growth | Medium — relates to org decision-making | "You're offered a role that pays 40% more but requires relocating..." |
| Relationship conflict resolution | Medium — relates to team dynamics | "Your partner wants to make a major purchase you disagree with..." |
| Health / lifestyle | Low | Defer |
| Parenting / family | Low | Defer |
Start with the top 2-3 categories. Design 5-10 sample scenarios in each.
Timeline¶
| Phase | When | What |
|---|---|---|
| Design | After GTM launches (May-June 2026) | Category taxonomy, sample scenarios, profile UX |
| Validate | After 50+ players on solo | Do solo players ask for personal scenarios? |
| Build | TBD based on validation | Implement solo-only personal track with intake opt-in |
Open Questions (Reduced)¶
- ~~How does this interact with multiplayer?~~ Resolved: it doesn't.
- What personal categories matter most? See table above — need to validate with team.
- Does the personal profile layer feed into the governance DTA at all? Option A says no. Option C says yes (as context modulation). This is the remaining design decision — but it can be deferred until we see the data.