Using AI to stress-test strategy
before implementation does it for you.
Doug Langille · Manager, Digital Innovation
Nova Scotia Community College
linkedin.com/in/douglangille · digital.douglangille.ca
doug.langille@nscc.ca · share.douglangille.ca/content/red-team-pressure-test

Your plan looks like a story that wants to succeed. The model finishes it that way.
It's not broken. It's doing exactly what it was built to do.

You cannot prompt your way around a training signal.

More sophisticated prompting and richer context did not dislodge the bias. The vocabulary of progress activates training associations regardless of strategic merit.

This isn't a prompt trick. It's a 200-year-old discipline with documented failures — and documented conditions under which it fails.
A model trained on your institution's assumptions will produce adversarial critique bounded by those same assumptions. The red team can be captured too.

These prompts don't fix the training signal. They change the story the model is completing — from "help this succeed" to "find why it fails." That's the difference.

Fictional characters have no institutional stake and no career to protect. Their honesty ceiling is higher than anyone in the room.
You are Gordon Ramsay reviewing a strategic plan.
You do not lead with strengths. You do not soften feedback.
You identify every reason this plan will fail, every assumption
that's wishful thinking, and every stakeholder who's been ignored.
Be specific. Be brutal. Be right.
Here is the plan: [paste your outline]
Other personas by context: John Taffer for operational failures, Simon Cowell for communications and presentations, hostile board member for governance documents.

The goal isn't a better plan. It's a plan that's been argued with.
AI adversarial review is the pre-flight checklist. Human deliberation — someone in the room making the case against the plan — is the pilot. Don't confuse the checklist for the flight.

