Carried in What we know — open the session with this 5 min

Bullseye: Ritora — Open stage, 大学生, ENTP-type cultural analyst. Wants to be heard with respect. Drawn to people with convictions. Frustrated with 曖昧さ.

Doorway: 「自分の意見を聞いて欲しい」— wants to view Japanese culture from the outside, through a worldview framework, and be genuinely heard in the process.

Safeguard already agreed: Never pretend to be non-Christian.

Two differentiators to confirm: (1) Honest cultural outsider perspective held with grace. (2) Embodied alternative lifestyles — real people living differently, not just ideas.

Read these aloud. Ask: "Does anything feel wrong or missing before we move forward?" One round, 60 seconds each. Then move.

Block 3 close Lock the differentiators and Mini Manifesto 20 min

Note-and-vote: confirm differentiator 1

Silent write (2 min): "In one sentence — what do we offer Ritora that no secular alternative does?" Reveal. Short discussion. Victor decides.

Note-and-vote: confirm differentiator 2

Silent write (2 min): "What do we show Ritora that no secular alternative can show him?" Reveal. Short discussion. Victor decides.

Prompts if stuck

When Ritora read our content, what would make him think "I've never seen a channel say it this way before"?
What do JCCC staff and stinters have that a Note blogger or YouTube commentator doesn't?
What does it mean to name difficult things in Japanese culture with grace — not bitterness?

Mini Manifesto — write these three together

Principle 1 (Differentiator 1): We name cultural tensions honestly — not to criticise, but to offer a framework.
Principle 2 (Differentiator 2): We show people living differently — not just arguing for it.
Principle 3 (Safeguard): We never pretend to be non-Christian.

Output: Two differentiators named + Mini Manifesto written (3 principles)

Block 4 Magic Lenses — which content approach wins? 40 min

Pre-pivot: generate 3 distinct approaches (8 min, silent)

Everyone writes 3 genuinely different content approaches for Ritora. Not variations of the same idea — real alternatives. The あの人たちの暮らし idea from last session counts as one. What are two others that look completely different?

Prompt to open pre-pivot

If あの人たちの暮らし is Option A — what would Option B look like if it was text-based instead of video? What would Option C look like if it invited Ritora to respond rather than just watch?

Run each lens — 5 min per lens

Student lens

Would Ritora feel heard or sold to after engaging with this?

Pragmatic lens

Can Mayu and the team realistically ship version one by September 2026?

Growth lens

Would Ritora forward this to a friend without needing to explain or apologise for it?

Japan culture lens

Does this respect indirect communication — or does it feel like a setup?

Watch for: choosing the most exciting approach rather than the one that passes all four lenses. The Japan Culture lens often eliminates approaches that feel great to the team but coercive to Ritora.

Watch for: the あの人たちの暮らし idea is rich — but it's a YouTube series, which is high production cost. If it scores low on the Pragmatic lens, name that honestly. A lower-cost version may be the right starting experiment.

Output: one chosen content approach with lens scores noted

Synthesis Founding Hypothesis — fill the template together 20 min

Draft to work from — put this on the board

"If we address Ritora's desire to view Japanese culture through a larger worldview framework — and to be genuinely heard in the process for Open-stage university students who think differently but have nowhere to put it with [your chosen content approach from Block 4], we think they will engage over 教養系 YouTube and Note/Ameba blogs because of we name cultural tensions with grace rather than bitterness and we show real people living differently — not just talking about it."

Prompts to pressure-test it

Read it aloud. Does "Ritora" recognise himself in this sentence?
Is there anything in this sentence we're not actually willing to test? If so, cut it.
Does this sentence honour the safeguard — or does it accidentally hide our identity?
Could we say this more simply without losing the precision?

Output: one finalised Founding Hypothesis sentence the whole team owns

Experiment Card Turn the hypothesis into a testable first step 20 min

Fill this together

Hypothesis

We believe Ritora-type students will [behaviour] when we [content action] because [reason from differentiators]

Test

We will [specific smallest thing we can ship] by [date] and measure [metric — comments, saves, shares, LINE joins]

Right if

We observe [signal] within [timeframe] — e.g. Ritora-type students comment, save, or share without being asked

Wrong if

We observe [signal] — and we will then [pivot / stop / retest with different doorway]

Prompts to complete the card

What is the smallest thing we could ship in the next 4 weeks that would tell us if this hypothesis is true?
One post? One video? One LINE message to 5 students? What's the cheapest real test?
How would we know Ritora engaged — not just viewed, but actually responded?
If this fails — what exactly would we do next? Name it now before we're emotionally invested.

Watch for: setting a test that's too big to run quickly. The Experiment Card should describe something you can ship in 2–4 weeks, not a full content series. Comments and saves on a single piece of content are valid signals.

Output: one completed Experiment Card — the DS team's first testable ministry experiment

Close Sprint 0 — what happens before the next session 5 min

Sprint 0 (this week): Each team member writes one sentence privately — "Based on what I know about Ritora, what makes us genuinely different from his alternatives?" Bring to Session 2 as the opening for Block 3.

After Session 2: Recruit 5 Ritora-type students for the Bullseye Customer Sprint interview day. Write the screener together.

CP② Foundation Sprint — Session 2 Run Sheet

CP② Foundation Sprint — session 2 run sheet