A systematic process for figuring out what you need to know before you act. This framework produces a prioritised list of specific, answerable questions that guide effective research.
Core principle: The quality of your questions determines the quality of your answers. Bad questions lead to aimless research. Good questions lead to confident decisions.
This connects to Per-Note Questions and Feynman’s 12 Favourite Problems—the same principle that “if this is an answer, what’s the question?” applies here in reverse: before you research, know what questions you’re trying to answer.
Why This Matters
| Without clear questions | With clear questions |
|---|---|
| ”I should research this” → hours of browsing | ”I need to answer X, Y, Z” → targeted search |
| Collect information but can’t decide if it’s enough | Know exactly when you have what you need |
| Miss critical factors you never thought to ask about | Failure modes surface questions proactively |
| Feel uncertain even after extensive research | Confidence comes from answering the right questions |
The Seven-Step Process
Step 1: State what you’re trying to accomplish
Write one sentence describing the decision or outcome you’re working toward.
Format: “I need to action so that result.”
Examples:
- “I need to choose a hot water tank so that we don’t have problems with warranties or installation.”
- “I need to update my resume so that I get more interview callbacks.”
- “I need to understand our Q3 sales data so that I can recommend where to focus next quarter.”
Why this matters: If you can’t state what you’re trying to accomplish, you can’t know what questions matter. This is your anchor—every question you generate should connect back to this outcome.
Step 2: Ask “What could go wrong?”
List 3-5 ways this decision could fail or cause problems later.
Prompt yourself:
- “If I regret this in 6 months, what would have caused that?”
- “What would make this a waste of time/money?”
- “What mistakes do people commonly make with this?”
Example (hot water tank):
- Buy one that’s too small for our household
- Warranty doesn’t cover the things that actually break
- Installation is more complicated/expensive than expected
- Brand has reliability problems we didn’t know about
- Miss a rebate or better deal elsewhere
This is related to pre-mortem thinking—imagining failure before it happens to identify what you need to prevent. See also The Idea Compass East direction: “What opposes this?” Failure modes are the opposite of your intended success.
Step 3: Convert failure modes into questions
For each thing that could go wrong, write the question that would help you avoid it.
Formula: “Failure mode → What do I need to know to prevent this?”
Example (hot water tank):
| What could go wrong | Question to prevent it |
|---|---|
| Too small for household | What size do I need for [X] people / [Y] bathrooms? |
| Warranty doesn’t cover what breaks | What actually fails on these units, and is that covered? |
| Installation surprises | What does installation require, and does our setup support it? |
| Reliability problems | What do owners complain about after 1-2 years? |
| Missed better deal | What are the alternatives, and how do prices compare? |
Now you have specific, answerable questions instead of vague anxiety about “doing enough research.”
Step 4: Add “What does good look like?” questions
Beyond avoiding failure, identify what success looks like.
Prompt yourself:
- “What would make this choice obviously right?”
- “What features/outcomes would I be happy to have?”
- “What do experts recommend for my situation?”
Example (hot water tank):
- What’s the expected lifespan of a quality unit?
- What efficiency rating should I look for?
- What brands do plumbers actually recommend?
The distinction: Failure-prevention tells you what to avoid. Success criteria tell you what to choose. You need both.
Step 5: Prioritise your questions
Not all questions are equally important. Rank them using Pareto Diagnostic Framework thinking—20% of questions will drive 80% of decision confidence.
Priority test: “If I could only answer ONE question before deciding, which would it be?”
Categorise:
- Must answer: Decision is risky without this information
- Should answer: Would improve confidence significantly
- Nice to answer: Useful but not critical
Example (hot water tank):
| Priority | Question |
|---|---|
| Must | What size do I need? |
| Must | What does installation require? |
| Should | What do owners complain about? |
| Should | What do warranties typically cover? |
| Nice | What efficiency ratings exist? |
Why this matters: You may not have time to research everything. Prioritisation ensures you answer the questions that most affect your decision first.
Step 6: Check that your questions are answerable
Good questions can be researched. Bad questions are too vague or subjective. This connects to the Q-I-ST Framework—questions should be specific enough to generate concrete Ideas and be supported by Supplementary Tools (evidence).
Test each question:
| Vague (hard to answer) | Specific (answerable) |
|---|---|
| “Is this a good hot water tank?" | "What do owners report after 2 years of use?" |
| "Should I buy this?" | "How does this compare to [alternative] on [criteria]?" |
| "What’s the best option?" | "What do plumbers recommend for [my situation]?” |
Fix vague questions by asking:
- “Good according to what criteria?”
- “Best for whom, in what situation?”
- “Compared to what alternatives?”
The specificity test: Can you imagine finding a source that directly answers this question? If not, make it more specific.
Step 7: Write your final question list
Compile your prioritised, specific questions into a clean list. This becomes the input for research.
Format:
DECISION: [What you're trying to accomplish]
MUST ANSWER:
1. [Question]
2. [Question]
SHOULD ANSWER:
3. [Question]
4. [Question]
NICE TO ANSWER:
5. [Question]
Example output:
DECISION: Choose a hot water tank that won't cause problems
MUST ANSWER:
1. What size (gallons) do I need for 3 people / 2 bathrooms?
2. What does installation require - electrical, venting, space?
3. What's our plumber's recommendation for brand/model?
SHOULD ANSWER:
4. What do owners report failing after 1-2 years?
5. What do warranties typically cover vs exclude?
6. How do prices compare across Home Depot, Lowes, and plumber-supplied?
NICE TO ANSWER:
7. What efficiency ratings are available and do they affect operating cost significantly?
This question list now feeds directly into research. Each question becomes a research target with documented answers and evidence.
Quick Reference
The 5 Question Prompts:
- “What am I trying to accomplish?”
- “What could go wrong?”
- “What would make this obviously right?”
- “If I could only answer one question, which matters most?”
- “Is this question specific enough to actually answer?”
Signs of Good Questions:
- Specific (not “is this good?” but “good according to what criteria?“)
- Answerable (you can find information that addresses it)
- Decision-relevant (the answer changes what you’d do)
- Prioritized (you know which matter most)
Signs of Bad Questions:
- Vague (“should I do this?“)
- Subjective with no criteria (“what’s best?“)
- Unanswerable (“will this work out?“)
- Everything feels equally important
Common Traps
Skipping straight to research. The temptation is to “just start looking.” But unfocused research wastes hours and leaves you uncertain. 10 minutes on questions saves hours of browsing.
Too many “Must answer” questions. If everything is critical, nothing is. Force yourself to prioritize. What would you answer if you only had 30 minutes?
Questions that are actually opinions. “Is X good?” is not a question—it’s asking for a judgment. Convert to: “What criteria matter for X?” then “How does X perform on those criteria?”
Forgetting to ask experts. Some questions are best answered by a person, not a search. “What do plumbers recommend?” requires asking a plumber, not reading blog posts.
Connection to the Research Pipeline
This framework is Step 0 before research begins. The output (prioritized question list) becomes the input for structured research:
Question Generation Framework (this note)
↓ produces
Prioritized question list
↓ feeds into
Research (each question gets 1-2 credible sources)
↓ produces
Documented answers with evidence
↓ processed into
[[Atomic Notes]] using [[Q-I-ST Framework]]
↓ connected via
[[The Idea Compass]] and [[Per-Note Questions]]
↓ enables
Informed decision or accumulated knowledge
See also Feynman’s 12 Favourite Problems for how to maintain life-level questions that filter everything you learn.
North: Where does this comes from?
- Per-Note Questions (the principle that questions organize knowledge)
- Feynman’s 12 Favourite Problems (questions as filters for what matters)
- Pre-Mortem Thinking (imagining failure to prevent it)
East: What opposes this?
- Unfocused Research (browsing without clear questions)
- Analysis Paralysis (asking too many questions, never acting)
- Gut Decisions (acting without asking questions at all)
South: Where this leads?
- Q-I-ST Framework (how to process answers into atomic notes)
- Atomic Notes (documenting what you learn)
- Confident Decisions (acting with clarity)
West: What is similar?
- Pareto Diagnostic Framework (minimum questions, maximum insight)
- The Idea Compass (using directional prompts to generate connections)
- 5 Whys (iterative questioning to find root cause)
- Socratic Method (learning through questions)