◇ Could this help me?
Yes, with the branding corrected. Multi-perspective role-play prompting is a legitimately useful, zero-risk technique against consensus tunnel vision, and its core idea (perspective-guided questioning improves research breadth) is genuinely validated by Stanford's STORM paper. But the five-persona four-prompt recipe is a community adaptation, not Stanford's published method, so treat it as a good prompting pattern with respectable lineage rather than a Stanford-proven protocol. General prompting technique, not project-specific; no install needed since it runs as plain prompts.
Research this topic using a multi-perspective method in four passes. Pass 1, five-perspective scan: answer as five distinct experts, clearly labeled: a practitioner (what works day to day), an academic (what peer-reviewed research actually says, including where it contradicts popular belief), a skeptic (the strongest case against the mainstream view), an economist (who profits from the current narrative and which incentives shape it), and a historian (the closest historical precedents and how they ended). Pass 2, contradiction map: list where these perspectives disagree and why. Pass 3, synthesis: reconcile them into one balanced assessment with confidence levels. Pass 4, self peer-review: critique your own synthesis for gaps, overclaims, and missing perspectives, then revise it. The topic is: