A meta-framework connecting decision tools into a complete lifecycle. Different stages require different tools—using the wrong tool at the wrong stage wastes effort or creates false confidence.
Quick Reference
The Sequence
1. ROUGH FRAME → "What am I deciding?" (one sentence)
↓
2. WEIGH → "Does this need the full process?"
↓
3. FULL FRAME → Generate the questions that matter
↓
4. RESEARCH → Gather borrowed signal efficiently
↓
5. CHECK LIMIT → Is my uncertainty about pattern or outcome?
↓
6. PREPARE → Can I complete the sentence for each outcome?
↓
7. DESIGN → What's the minimum experiment to learn?
↓
8. ACT → Convert clarity to action same-day
↓
9. INTERPRET → What does the signal I received mean?
↓
10. DECIDE → Iterate, pivot, or quit?
The loop continues: Iterate returns to DESIGN, Pivot returns to FRAME, Quit exits.
Why ROUGH FRAME before WEIGH: You can’t assess reversibility until you know what you’re deciding. “Is this reversible?” requires knowing what “this” is.
Stage 1: ROUGH FRAME
Question: “What am I deciding?”
State the decision in one sentence. Just enough to evaluate whether it needs the full process.
Not “should I change careers?” but “should I apply to this specific job?” Not “how do I fix my finances?” but “should I cancel this subscription?”
The rough frame scopes what WEIGH evaluates.
Stage 2: WEIGH
Question: “Does this decision need the full apparatus, or should I just try it and see?”
“Is the cost of analysis higher than the expected cost of being wrong?”
| Reversible | Irreversible | |
|---|---|---|
| Low cost if wrong | Just try it | Light process |
| High cost if wrong | Light process | Full process |
When you take the simple path:
- Set a cheap fail-fast condition: “If X doesn’t happen in Y time, I’ll reassess”
- You still know your fallback: “If this doesn’t work, I’ll Z”
- You’re not skipping preparation—you’re betting that learning from outcome beats learning from research
See Simplicity Moves Cost, It Doesn’t Reduce It — taking the simple path is valid when the cost is survivable and you’re the one bearing it.
Stage 3: FULL FRAME
Question: “What do I need to know to make this decision well?”
- What does good look like? (Success criteria)
- What could go wrong? (Failure modes)
- What don’t I know that I need to know? (Knowledge gaps)
- Who has done this before? (Sources of borrowed signal)
The output is a list of questions to answer before acting.
Stage 4: RESEARCH
Question: “How do I efficiently find answers before hitting the limit?”
Where borrowed signal lives:
| Question Type | Primary Sources | Secondary Sources |
|---|---|---|
| ”What typically happens?” | Case studies, statistics, precedent | Expert opinion, forums |
| ”What do experts recommend?” | Practitioner interviews, guidelines | Books, courses, blogs |
| ”What are the failure modes?” | Post-mortems, reviews, complaints | Your pre-mortem thinking |
| ”What’s the process?” | Official documentation, regulatory | How-to guides, tutorials |
| ”What’s the cost/benefit?” | Comparable transactions, market data | Estimates, rules of thumb |
Minimum viable search:
- One expert source (someone who’s done this repeatedly)
- One case study (someone who’s been through this)
- One failure mode search (what goes wrong?)
If these don’t exist → you may have already hit the limit.
Diminishing returns signals:
| Old Signal | Problem | Better Signal |
|---|---|---|
| Same info, different words | SEO makes this default | ”New perspectives or new presentations?” |
| Circular citations | Normal in most fields | ”Traced back to primary sources?” |
| Tangential drift | Could be productive | ”Connect to core question in one sentence?” |
Productive Divergence vs. Avoidance Drift:
| Productive | Avoidance |
|---|---|
| Explicitly in EXPLORE mode | Should be in DECIDE mode |
| Can articulate why this connects | Struggle to explain why here |
| Set a time-box | Lost track of time |
| Return to core question | Forgot original question |
Stage 5: CHECK LIMIT
Question: “Is my remaining uncertainty about the general pattern, or about my specific outcome?”
Use The Limit of Borrowed Signal:
“Can more research tell me what will happen to ME, or only what typically happens to PEOPLE LIKE ME?”
- Pattern uncertainty → Keep researching (borrowed signal helps)
- Outcome uncertainty → Stop researching, engage to get personal signal
The limit is reached when your uncertainty is downstream of an interaction that hasn’t occurred yet. No amount of research can tell you how this specific person will respond to your specific pitch.
Stage 6: PREPARE
Question: “Can I complete the sentence for each plausible outcome?”
Use The Preparedness Threshold:
“If
this outcome happens, then Itake this specific actionusingthis resource, which results inthis expected result.”
If you can complete this sentence for the range of plausible outcomes—good, bad, and ambiguous—you’re prepared. If you can’t, identify what’s missing and address it.
Preparedness isn’t certainty about what will happen. It’s clarity about what you’ll do when you don’t know.
Stage 7: DESIGN
Question: “What’s the minimum engagement that produces useful signal?”
| Preparedness Threshold | Experiment Frame | Output Contract |
|---|---|---|
| ”I know what I’ll do if it fails" | "I’ve designed this to teach me either way" | "I acted today” |
| Defensive | Generative | Activating |
Before acting, ask:
- What am I testing? (State the hypothesis)
- What result would confirm vs. disconfirm? (Define success signal)
- What’s the minimum cost/effort to learn this? (Scope the experiment)
- What will I do with each possible result? (Pre-commit to interpretation)
“Most things in life aren’t pass or fail—they’re experiments you can adjust.”
This reframe increases rigor by forcing you to define what you’re learning, not just what you’re doing.
Needs development
The experiment design process could use more structure—specifically, templates for common experiment types (sales outreach, job applications, creative pitches, technical tests).
Stage 8: ACT
Question: “Did I convert clarity to action today?”
Use The Output Contract:
“Can I point to what I did today that I wouldn’t have done without this thinking?”
If not, the thinking was either premature or performative.
Clarity is fuel. Action is fire. Without output, planning reinforces impossibility by inertia.
Stage 9: INTERPRET
Question: “What do I actually learn from this result?”
Step 1: Separate outcome from process
“Even if the outcome had been different, would I make the same choice again given what I knew?”
| Good Process | Bad Process | |
|---|---|---|
| Good Outcome | Skill (repeat) | Luck (don’t over-learn) |
| Bad Outcome | Variance (continue) | Failure (learn and change) |
Step 2: Locate the signal
“What’s the simplest explanation for this result?”
| Signal Type | What it tells you | What to change |
|---|---|---|
| About the context | This situation, timing, counterparty | Try different context, same approach |
| About your approach | Your method, pitch, strategy | Refine or redesign |
| About you | Your skills, preparation, fit | Develop, practice, or reposition |
| About the goal | Whether this is achievable/worth it | Reassess goal itself |
Start with context, then approach, then you, then goal. Don’t jump to “I’m fundamentally unsuited” when “their budget got cut” explains it.
Step 3: Determine update size
| Factor | Update more | Update less |
|---|---|---|
| Sample size | Multiple consistent signals | Single data point |
| Signal quality | Direct feedback, clear reason | Vague rejection, no explanation |
| Base rate deviation | Very different from typical | Matches base rates |
| Process quality | Good process, bad outcome | Bad process (outcome uninformative) |
Pre-Committed Interpretation: The best time to decide how to interpret a result is before you get it—while still in DESIGN. This prevents motivated reasoning, overreaction, and goalpost-moving.
Needs development
Could use concrete examples of pre-committed interpretations for common scenarios.
Stage 10: DECIDE
Question: “Given what I learned, what do I do next?”
| Option | When to use | Signal pattern |
|---|---|---|
| Iterate | Approach directionally right | Partial success, clear feedback on what to improve |
| Pivot | Goal valid but approach isn’t working | Repeated failure despite good execution |
| Quit | Goal isn’t achievable or worth the cost | Fundamental obstacle, or opportunity cost too high |
Test 1: Execution vs. Strategy
“Am I failing at execution (how I’m doing it) or failing at strategy (what I’m doing)?”
- Execution failure → Iterate
- Strategy failure → Pivot or quit
Test 2: The Viability Question
“What would have to be true for this to eventually work?”
If the conditions seem impossible or not worth creating → Pivot or quit
Test 3: The Sample Size Question
“How many attempts before I conclude this isn’t working vs. just bad luck?”
- Highly variable (sales, creative pitches): 10-20 attempts
- Moderately variable (applications, outreach): 5-10 attempts
- Low variability (technical tests): 3-5 attempts
Legitimate Quit Conditions:
- Fundamental obstacle discovered: Makes this impossible, not just hard
- Better opportunity emerged: What I’m not doing is clearly better
- Cost exceeded budget: Hit my limit on time/money/energy
- Goal changed: I no longer want what I thought I wanted
The test: “Am I quitting because I’m discouraged, or because the evidence says this won’t work?”
When to Build Systems
Not every repeated action deserves a system. The investment must match the problem.
The “No System” Test:
| If… | Then… |
|---|---|
| Task happens < 10 times/month | Manual is probably fine |
| Errors don’t compound | Manual with checklist |
| Data isn’t needed for future decisions | Don’t capture it |
| You’re the only user | Your memory IS the system |
The Data Capture Anxiety Test:
“If I don’t have this data in 6 months, what decision will I be unable to make?”
If you can’t name the decision → you don’t need to capture it.
Trigger Thresholds (at least ONE must be true):
| Trigger | Threshold |
|---|---|
| Repetition | > 10x/month |
| Error rate | > 5% with consequences |
| Time drain | > 5 hours/week |
| Scale inflection | Growth makes manual unsustainable |
| Data criticality | Compliance or decision-critical |
| Stakeholder friction | Repeated complaints |
If no triggers met: Continue manual, reassess monthly.
Build, Buy, or Outsource:
Score each question 1-4 (Rare → Common):
- How widespread is it in its market?
- How well do people understand it?
- What are publications saying about it?
- 3-6 points: Build it (no viable alternative)
- 7-9 points: Buy it (solutions exist)
- 10-12 points: Outsource it (commodity)
North: Where this comes from
- Question Generation SOP, Research Response SOP
- The Limit of Borrowed Signal, The Preparedness Threshold, The Output Contract
- Frameworks as Processing (the philosophical companion to this note)
- Pip Decks: Workshop Tactics, Team Tactics (5S, Force Field Analysis, Assumption Map)
East: What opposes this?
- Analysis Paralysis (stuck in RESEARCH/PREPARE)
- Premature Action (skipping to ACT)
- Using wrong tool for the stage
South: Where this leads
- Faster decisions (right tool, right stage)
- Better learning (designed experiments, pre-committed interpretation)
- Transferable process (hand off without draining myself)
West: What’s similar?
- OODA Loop, Lean Startup, Scientific Method
- Any staged decision process