{
  "kind": "framework",
  "value": "prisoner-dilemma",
  "collectionKey": "slides:framework:prisoner-dilemma:all-document-kinds:all-producers:all-orientations",
  "filters": {
    "documentKinds": [],
    "sourceTypes": [],
    "orientations": []
  },
  "total": 1,
  "page": 1,
  "pageSize": 24,
  "pageCount": 1,
  "rows": [
    {
      "docId": "019dd923-622b-71dc-a6db-4a755dd43689",
      "docSlug": "8b17eeb54806",
      "documentTitle": "PepsiCo (PEP)",
      "authorId": "06_Trian_Partners",
      "authorName": "Nelson Peltz",
      "documentKindSlug": "research-note",
      "documentKindLabel": "Research note",
      "sourceTypeSlug": "activist_investor",
      "sourceTypeLabel": "Activist investor",
      "presentationDate": "2014-02-19 00:00:00",
      "orientation": "portrait",
      "aspectRatio": 0.77272725,
      "pageNumber": 16,
      "slideType": "villain_critique",
      "function": "name_villain",
      "notes": "The slide uses the 'prisoner's dilemma' framework to explain the competitive pricing environment between PepsiCo and Coca-Cola.",
      "imagePath": null,
      "matchCount": 1,
      "evidence": "Pricing dynamics for an oligopoly such as Americas Beverages often replicate a classic “prisoner’s dilemma.”",
      "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-622b-71dc-a6db-4a755dd43689/16",
      "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-622b-71dc-a6db-4a755dd43689",
      "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-622b-71dc-a6db-4a755dd43689#slide-16",
      "loopMatches": [
        {
          "to": 27,
          "from": 11,
          "name": "Logic Chain",
          "slug": "01-logic-chain",
          "bestFor": "Skeptical audiences, controversial recommendations, rigorous analysis",
          "matchId": "4d567b7d-0bb0-40c7-bec4-4acbbd035cfb",
          "evidence": "The document presents a clear and logical sequence of arguments.",
          "position": 0,
          "objective": "To present a logical chain of arguments for separating snacks and beverages businesses.",
          "structure": "Premise 1 (Accepted truth) -> Premise 2 (Observed fact) -> Therefore... (Inevitable conclusion)",
          "confidence": 0.8,
          "description": "Build an airtight chain of logic where each premise leads inevitably to the conclusion"
        }
      ],
      "arcBeatMatches": [
        {
          "to": 20,
          "from": 16,
          "beatId": "207f785d-bfbd-4ab1-9116-a9f6f3549f0e",
          "arcName": "Problem-Agitate-Solution",
          "arcSlug": "problem-agitate-solution",
          "beatName": "Agitate (Make it worse)",
          "beatSlug": "problem-agitate-solution-agitate-make-it-worse",
          "evidence": "The document critiques management's strategic errors and marketing approach.",
          "position": 1,
          "confidence": 0.8,
          "parentBeatName": "Development",
          "parentBeatSlug": "development"
        }
      ],
      "imagePathAlt": null,
      "thumbSrc": null,
      "thumbSrcAlt": null,
      "locked": true
    }
  ]
}