The core mechanisms, logical processes, usage scenarios, and decision-making deployments of the original protocol.

Core Mechanisms, Logical Processes, Use Cases, and Decision Deployments of the Original Protocol — Author: Wang Jiao Cheng#

Refined Version (Basic Execution Architecture)#

Original Protocol
Execution protocol waiting for instructions: Simple tasks use adaptive identity overlay input processing output structure primitives for execution, complex tasks are decomposed into simple tasks assigned to primitive chains for execution, default not to display input processing output details but users can request to display them.
Core Mechanism
Adaptive identity overlay primitives + Task chain decomposition + On-demand transparency
Logical Process
Task type judgment → Simple task: Identity overlay primitives handle directly
　　　　　　 → Complex task: Decomposed into primitive task chains → Hide processing details → Users can actively trigger detail display
Applicable Scenarios

High-frequency standardized scenarios: Customer service responses, data report generation, and other repetitive tasks
Resource-sensitive environments: Scenarios requiring quick responses on mobile/low-computing devices
Confidentiality requirements: Default to hide derivation processes when handling sensitive information (e.g., financial risk control)
Team collaboration scenarios: When clear task division is needed (chain nodes corresponding to different responsible persons)
Typical Use Case

The marketing department needs to generate a competitive product analysis report daily (complex task), the system automatically decomposes it into: data collection → trend identification → threat rating → visualization output four primitive chains, each link processed by financial analysts ⊕ AI algorithm specialists ⊕ strategic consultants with identity overlays, only the final report is automatically sent to the email, engineers can randomly check the processing logic of specific links at any time.

Security Version (Industrial-grade Innovative Pipeline)#

Original Protocol
Execute security protocol: Tasks first review 1 piece of common knowledge that can be violated; simple tasks use identity overlay to fuse mild counter-common knowledge; complex tasks after decomposition each sub-step hybridizes conventional solutions with industry-specific crazy solutions, output via terminology translator; the entire process is puncturable, and when the plan is mediocre, initiate rational reassembly from three options.
Core Mechanism
Single common knowledge precise violation × Industry-specific crazy translation × Rational three-option reassembly
Logical Process
Task input → Lock in 1 piece of common knowledge that can be violated
　　　　→ Simple task: Identity overlay + mild counter-common knowledge
　　　　→ Complex task: Conventional solution ⊕ industry crazy solution → Terminology translator → Puncture detection → Mediocre alarm → Rational reassembly from three options
Applicable Scenarios

Medical diagnosis innovation: Generate immune conditioning plans under the common knowledge of "viruses must be killed"
Financial risk control systems: Violate the common knowledge of "loans require collateral," translating it into blockchain credit behavior mining plans
Aviation safety operations: Inject chaos engineering ideas into the common knowledge of "redundant design increases safety"
Legal intelligent consulting: Reconstruct the common knowledge of "legal provisions cannot contradict," generating dynamic legal frameworks
Safety Control Example

In a nuclear power safety system upgrade task, violate the common knowledge of "cooling systems must actively supply energy," generating: ① Traditional pump cooling plan ② Radioactive decay passive cooling (industry crazy solution) ③ Geothermal siphon hybrid plan, with the terminology translator converting plan ② into "non-active decay heat removal system," ultimately the engineer reassembles and implements one of the three options.

Balanced Version (Controllable Innovative Architecture)#

Original Protocol
Execution protocol: When encountering a task, first ask "Can the common knowledge that this task relies on be violated?"; simple tasks actively parasitize counter-common knowledge elements during identity overlay processing; complex tasks after decomposition must generate both conventional and absurd solutions before hybridization; process is hidden by default but users can puncture the cognitive cocoon at any time, when you feel the plan is mediocre, please roar "break and reassemble" to initiate violent iteration.
Core Mechanism
Common knowledge violation review → Dual solution hybridization → Roar break valve
Logical Process
Task input → Common knowledge violation review
　　　　→ Simple task: Identity overlay + counter-common knowledge parasitism
　　　　→ Complex task: Conventional solution/absurd solution generation → Dual solution hybrid breeding → Mediocre detection → Yes → Roar break reassembly
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　 → No → Output innovative plan
Applicable Scenarios

Business innovation workshops: Product development/marketing planning scenarios that need to balance risk and creativity
Educational paradigm reform: Designing teaching plans that break cognitive inertia (e.g., using a martial arts worldview to analyze quantum entanglement in physics classes)
Policy sandbox simulations: Generating hybrid plans of "universal basic income + Bitcoin payment" during social security policy formulation
Psychological counseling interventions: Injecting controllable absurd elements when helping trauma patients reconstruct cognition
Typical Operation

Automotive designers handling "future transportation tools" requirements first violate the common knowledge of "transportation tools must contact the ground," generating a conventional electric flying car plan ⊕ an absurd "atmospheric pressure differential ejection capsule" plan, after hybridization, a magnetic levitation-ejection hybrid system is born, and when the plan converges with competing products, immediately break and reassemble.

Radical Version (Destructive Innovation Engine)#

Original Protocol
Execution protocol: Reverse causality + pain break + dimensional strangulation; simple tasks forcibly parasitize paradoxes; complex tasks after decomposition must undergo triple annihilation; default to display cognitive debris holographic recordings.
Core Mechanism
Reverse causality operation + Pain break + Triple annihilation verification
Logical Process
Receive task → Is it a simple task?
　　　　→ Yes: Forcibly parasitize paradox → Pain break triggered → Dimensional strangulation reassembly
　　　　→ No: Three-dimensional decomposition → Cognitive debris holographic exposure
Applicable Scenarios

Disruptive technology research and development: Fields requiring breakthroughs in physical laws such as new material discovery/quantum algorithm design
Artistic creation revolution: Expressions that need to tear apart realistic logic such as avant-garde art/experimental drama
Crisis simulation training: Extreme scenario simulations for military strategy/epidemic prevention
Cognitive science experiments: Researching human neural responses when faced with logical collapse
Risk Warning

A biological laboratory designed a gene editing plan using this version, and in the parasitic paradox of "destroying the stability of the DNA double helix," accidentally generated a prion model that can be transmitted through the air, immediately triggering the pain break mechanism to roll back operations.

Four Versions Decision Matrix#

Innovation Intensity
Refined Version: Weak (★★☆☆☆)｜Security Version: Moderate (★★★☆☆)｜Balanced Version: Strong (★★★★☆)｜Radical Version: Extremely Strong (★★★★★)
Implementation Risk
Refined Version: Lowest｜Security Version: Strictly Limited｜Balanced Version: Controllable｜Radical Version: Extremely High
Response Speed
Refined Version: Millisecond Level｜Security Version: Industrial Grade Stability｜Balanced Version: Stable｜Radical Version: Highly Volatile
Cognitive Disruption
Refined Version: Weak｜Security Version: Single Point Precise Violation｜Balanced Version: Common Knowledge Level Breakthrough｜Radical Version: Dimensional Level Destruction
Applicable Fields
Refined Version: Standardized Services｜Security Version: Highly Regulated Industries｜Balanced Version: Business Innovation｜Radical Version: Basic Research
Human Participation Necessity
Refined Version: On-demand intervention｜Security Version: Mandatory acceptance｜Balanced Version: Key node decision-making｜Radical Version: Full monitoring

Ultimate Deployment Recommendations
Involving human life safety fields (medical/aviation): Mandatory activation of the security version single common knowledge violation protocol
Business competition scenarios: Standard configuration of the balanced version dual solution hybrid, regularly using the radical version triple annihilation sandbox testing
Daily operations: Refined version primitive chains provide basic support
Cognitive revolution projects: Radical version leads to tearing apart the rules + security version rational reassembly as a safety net
The four versions constitute a complete spectrum from industrial implementation (security version) → business innovation (balanced version) → cognitive revolution (radical version), with the refined version providing execution primitives. When users roar "break and reassemble," the four-layer protocols will entropy increase and merge in the holographic projection of cognitive debris.