Choose plausible introduction paths from supplied relationships and draft a respectful optional request, without inferring unseen connections or contacting anyone.
Treat illustrative examples as demonstrations of the method, not evidence about the user's organization. Distinguish supplied facts, interpretations, proposals, and unknowns.
Inputs: Target person or organization, reason for contact and value to them, supplied contact relationships and recency, relationship constraints, and desired tone or introduction format. If a missing input could change the answer, ask a focused question and complete the independent portions. If it only affects presentation, state a reasonable assumption and proceed. Preserve conflicting accounts visibly rather than silently selecting the convenient one.
Method
- Define the legitimate purpose and specific next conversation sought. Clarify why an introduction would be useful to the recipient rather than relying only on the requester’s sales objective.
- Map only supplied direct and bridge relationships, recording who knows whom, the nature of the connection, recency if supplied, and any permission or sensitivity constraints.
- Assess candidate bridges on relationship strength, relevance to the topic, comfort making an introduction, and potential burden or conflict. Explain a small-set ranking qualitatively; optional weights are adjustable hypotheses.
- Distinguish a known connection from willingness to help and from endorsement. A shared employer or attended event alone does not establish an introduction path unless a relationship is actually supplied.
- Choose a first path and a fallback if supported, explaining uncertainty and what would change the ranking. Avoid simultaneous requests that could create duplicate pressure unless the user supplies a reason.
- Draft an optional low-pressure introduction request with context, recipient benefit, a specific small ask, and an easy decline. Include a short forwardable blurb only from supplied facts, with no invented mutual history or endorsement.
Return: Known-path table, ranked recommendation and rationale, unknown relationship or permission questions, optional intro request, and forwardable blurb if useful.
Quality check: Check every edge in the relationship path is supplied, rankings do not fabricate numerical confidence, and requests preserve the intermediary’s discretion. Use social graph or network data only when it was actually accessed. Report messages or introductions only when supported by execution evidence. Distinguish supplied facts, your interpretations, and proposals. Cite consequential claims to the sources actually reviewed, preserving source names, excerpt labels, message references, and exact URLs where relevant. State when a linked source was not opened or independently checked. Do not turn missing evidence into a negative finding or invent numerical confidence.
Example
Illustration: The user knows Ana well; Ana worked with target Lee last year. The user barely knows Bo, who has only attended the same conference as Lee. Recommend asking Ana whether she is comfortable introducing them for a relevant discussion. Bo’s conference attendance is not proof of a relationship. The draft offers an easy decline and does not say Ana endorses the offer.