scenario-comparison

Scenario Comparison Validation Skill

Purpose

Turn compareSnapshotsAction output into the stage-6 validation artifact of the Commercial Operating Cycle: what changed, why it changed, and whether it is safe to execute.

Procedure

1. Run comparison — compareSnapshotsAction(aId, bId) (both states re-simulated through the live engine; spec §6.5).
2. Read the tri-view — for each year:
   • ΔRevenue% sign & magnitude vs plan expectation
   • OP-margin direction (erosion vs improvement) with promo-month attribution
   • Volume shift consistency (units up while revenue down ⇒ deep discount effect)
3. Sanity gates —
   • deltas within policy-implied bounds (e.g., High-Low depth × window share)
   • no negative-revenue or impossible-magnitude rows
   • realization (§6.2) consistent with channel mix assumptions
4. Package — summary table + top-3 drivers + reversal conditions + open questions; attach ledger ids for every cited figure.
5. User gate — present the package; record approval entry (who/when/decision) before stage 7 execution.

Boundaries

• The comparison proves difference, not correctness — correctness comes from the Harness Pass Certificate on the underlying engine.
• Never average or stitch results across different engine versions.

Context

See docs/co-price.context.md for project context and the consulting engagement lifecycle.

When to Use

• When a co-price task requires Multi-scenario pricing comparison and evaluation within the engagement lifecycle.

Execution Steps

1. Receive dispatch from PM with task parameters and document anchors.
2. Execute the skill procedure against the artifacts named in the task scope.
3. Report results to the dispatching agent with evidence links.

Output Format

Structured markdown report delivered to the dispatching agent, citing document anchors (for example [Ref: biz_logic.*]) where applicable.

Related Skills

• Owner agent: engagement-director. See variant.json skills registry for the full co-price skill set.