Problem definition
A bottleneck fragmenting match-centered growth, completion recovery and routines.
View all bottlenecksGAME DECISION MAP
Pokémon UNITE
Design direction
Keep evidence authority separate for rewards, results, prices, currencies, rights and probabilities, while sharing the reading order of evidence, state, choice, detail, user action and return to the original screen.
View all mechanismsRead the recurring-flow summary
Choose a Pokémon and role → defeat wild Pokémon and opponents to level up → score Aeos energy and take objectives → finish the match → claim progression and queue again.
REASONING IN THIS GAME
Selected designs and judgment conditions
Goals and residual processing
Initial IFR · goal direction
Realign progress state, goal distance, claim sequence and return-feedback conditions to recover volition and value.
Recurring Structures
Detailed Repeating Structures
What repeats and keeps the system moving?
3 analysis items · Read the method
Core classification and definition · Compounding Growth
Compounding Growth
Choose a Pokémon and role → defeat wild Pokémon and opponents to level up → score Aeos energy and take objectives → finish the match → claim progression and queue again.
Outputs strengthen assets, capabilities, or access and open a stronger next cycle.
View pattern definition →Core Battle Pass Loop
Daily/weekly/season missions convert repeated match participation into LP/cosmetic/premium value.
- Evidence
- Source Described
- Outcome basis
- Design Evidence
Supply Core Battle Loop
Match entry → Aeos energy scoring → win/loss → rewards/progression → next pre-match preparation.
- Evidence
- Source Described
- Outcome basis
- Design Evidence
Return License Event Loop
License events grant or accelerate Unite License access, then push players back to core matches.
- Evidence
- Source Described
- Outcome basis
- Design Evidence
Core classification and definition · Temporal and Operational Synchronization Break
Temporal and Operational Synchronization Break
The affected flow runs through match → claim → return; its limiting point is the liveops operations synchronization handoff.
Schedules, deadlines, renewals, settlement, return, and pacing do not form one executable order and operating rhythm.
View pattern definition →Core Temporal and Operational Synchronization Break · Liveops Operations
The affected flow runs through match → claim → return; its limiting point is the liveops operations synchronization handoff.
- Evidence
- Classification Confirmed
- Outcome basis
- Design Evidence
Supporting Fairness and Legitimacy Erosion · Competition
The affected flow runs through attribution → retry; its limiting point is the competition result handoff.
- Evidence
- Classification Confirmed
- Outcome basis
- Design Evidence
Supporting Resource and Value Conversion Failure · Economy Commerce
The affected flow runs through offer → use/renew; its limiting point is the economy commerce settlement handoff.
- Evidence
- Classification Confirmed
- Outcome basis
- Design Evidence
Supporting Resource and Value Conversion Failure · Economy Commerce
The affected flow runs through earn → exchange → use; its limiting point is the economy commerce settlement handoff.
- Evidence
- Classification Confirmed
- Outcome basis
- Design Evidence
Supporting Rights and Lifecycle Discontinuity · Asset
The affected flow runs through state → completion → return; its limiting point is the asset lifecycle handoff.
- Evidence
- Classification Confirmed
- Outcome basis
- Design Evidence
Supporting Rights and Lifecycle Discontinuity · Asset
The affected flow runs through random → duplicate → return; its limiting point is the asset lifecycle handoff.
- Evidence
- Classification Confirmed
- Outcome basis
- Design Evidence
Contradictions
Contradiction Patterns
What must improve, and what must remain protected?
6 analysis items · Read the method
Core classification and definition · Action and Return Continuity vs System Depth and Throughput
Action and Return Continuity vs System Depth and Throughput
Improve Performance Vs Load while preserving Complexity Vs Convenience.
Continuity to the next action, return, or reinvestment must improve while route diversity, strategic depth, and throughput remain protected.
View pattern definition →Core Core Contradiction
Improve Performance Vs Load while preserving Complexity Vs Convenience.
- Evidence
- Classification Confirmed
- Outcome basis
- Design Evidence
Supporting Speed Vs Integrity / Complexity Vs Convenience
Improve Speed Vs Integrity while preserving Complexity Vs Convenience.
- Evidence
- Classification Confirmed
- Outcome basis
- Design Evidence
Supporting Revenue Vs Trust / Complexity Vs Convenience
Across entitlement, improve Revenue Vs Trust while preserving Complexity Vs Convenience.
- Evidence
- Classification Confirmed
- Outcome basis
- Design Evidence
Supporting Complexity Vs Convenience / Freedom Vs Control
Across source/sink, improve Complexity Vs Convenience while preserving Freedom Vs Control.
- Evidence
- Classification Confirmed
- Outcome basis
- Design Evidence
Supporting Popularity Vs Scarcity / Stability Vs Volatility
Improve Popularity Vs Scarcity while preserving Stability Vs Volatility.
- Evidence
- Classification Confirmed
- Outcome basis
- Design Evidence
Supporting Revenue Vs Trust / Popularity Vs Scarcity
Across RNG → fallback, improve Revenue Vs Trust while preserving Popularity Vs Scarcity.
- Evidence
- Classification Confirmed
- Outcome basis
- Design Evidence
Solution Mechanisms
Solution Mechanisms
Which intervention mechanism changes the condition?
6 analysis items · Read the method
Core classification and definition · Route and Return Handoff
Route and Return Handoff
Apply Route and Return Handoff to the source-declared core track while preserving its protected value.
Connect the current state to valid next actions, routes, retries, and returns while preserving choice and existing paths.
View pattern definition →Core 5
Apply Route and Return Handoff to the source-declared core track while preserving its protected value.
- Evidence
- Solution Link Confirmed
- Outcome basis
- Design Evidence
Supporting State and Rule Visibility Encoding · Attachment
Apply State and Rule Visibility Encoding to the source-declared attachment track while preserving its protected value.
- Evidence
- Solution Link Confirmed
- Outcome basis
- Design Evidence
Supporting Loss Trust and Entitlement Buffer · Attachment
Apply Loss Trust and Entitlement Buffer across entitlement while preserving the protected value.
- Evidence
- Solution Link Confirmed
- Outcome basis
- Design Evidence
Supporting Layered and Progressive Disclosure · Attachment
Apply Layered and Progressive Disclosure across source/sink while preserving the protected value.
- Evidence
- Solution Link Confirmed
- Outcome basis
- Design Evidence
Supporting Context Asset and Authority Isolation · Attachment
Apply Context Asset and Authority Isolation to the source-declared attachment track while preserving its protected value.
- Evidence
- Solution Link Confirmed
- Outcome basis
- Design Evidence
Supporting Loss Trust and Entitlement Buffer · Attachment
Apply Loss Trust and Entitlement Buffer across RNG → fallback while preserving the protected value.
- Evidence
- Solution Link Confirmed
- Outcome basis
- Design Evidence
Solution Compositions
Solution Compositions
How should interventions be combined and sequenced?
8 analysis items · Read the method
Core classification and definition · Single-Track Localized Bundle
Single-Track Localized Bundle
Connect 1 source-declared mechanism as Single-Track Localized Bundle.
Combine a core intervention with stabilizing or accelerating support within one problem track and keep its impact localized.
View pattern definition →Core 5 Composition
Connect 1 source-declared mechanism as Single-Track Localized Bundle.
- Evidence
- Solution Link Confirmed
- Outcome basis
- Design Evidence
Supporting State and Rule Visibility Encoding · Attachment Composition
Connect 1 source-declared mechanism as Single-Track Localized Bundle.
- Evidence
- Solution Link Confirmed
- Outcome basis
- Design Evidence
Supporting Loss Trust and Entitlement Buffer · Attachment Composition
Connect 1 source-declared mechanism across entitlement as Single-Track Localized Bundle.
- Evidence
- Solution Link Confirmed
- Outcome basis
- Design Evidence
Supporting Layered and Progressive Disclosure · Attachment Composition
Connect 1 source-declared mechanism across source/sink as Single-Track Localized Bundle.
- Evidence
- Solution Link Confirmed
- Outcome basis
- Design Evidence
Supporting Context Asset and Authority Isolation · Attachment Composition
Connect 1 source-declared mechanism as Single-Track Localized Bundle.
- Evidence
- Solution Link Confirmed
- Outcome basis
- Design Evidence
Supporting Loss Trust and Entitlement Buffer · Attachment Composition
Connect 1 source-declared mechanism across RNG → fallback as Single-Track Localized Bundle.
- Evidence
- Solution Link Confirmed
- Outcome basis
- Design Evidence
Supporting Parallel Solution-Mechanism Composition
Connect 6 source-declared mechanisms across entitlement as Core-First Branch-Sequential Portfolio.
- Evidence
- Solution Link Confirmed
- Outcome basis
- Design Evidence
Supporting Parallel Solution-Mechanism Composition
Connect 6 source-declared mechanisms across entitlement as Parallel Local Contracts with Independent Rollback.
- Evidence
- Solution Link Confirmed
- Outcome basis
- Design Evidence