Document consequential schemas with falsification…
For each schema driving consequential decisions, document: (1) the schema as a sentence, (2) when you adopted it, (3) supporting evidence, and (4) what would falsify it — if you cannot articulate falsification conditions, treat the schema as dogma requiring immediate audit.
When This Fires
- During schema audits (Five-step schema audit) when evaluating high-stakes operating rules
- When a schema that drives major decisions has never been examined
- After a consequential decision produces a bad outcome
- When you notice yourself applying a schema reflexively without questioning it
Common Failure Mode
Writing vague falsification conditions: "I would update this if evidence suggested otherwise." That's not falsifiable — it's a general willingness to update without specifying what evidence would trigger the update. Specific: "I would abandon this schema if 3 of the next 5 early-stage products that prioritized speed over quality failed due to quality issues." Now you have a testable condition.
The Protocol
For each consequential schema: (1) Schema: state it as one clear sentence. (2) Adopted: when did you start operating on this? Source? (3) Evidence: what specifically supports it? Rate evidence quality (strong/moderate/weak). (4) Falsification: what would you need to observe to abandon or significantly revise it? If you cannot answer → flag as dogma and audit immediately. Dogma driving consequential decisions is one of the highest-risk conditions in personal epistemology.