Three occurrences in 30 days = pattern candidate, not coincidence — investigate structurally
When a behavior, reaction, or outcome recurs three or more times across a 30-day period, classify it as a pattern candidate requiring structural analysis rather than treating it as coincidence.
Why This Is a Rule
Humans underestimate recurrence frequency when events feel independent. Each occurrence is processed in isolation — "that's just how meetings go" or "that was a one-off frustration" — and the structural pattern connecting the occurrences remains invisible. Three occurrences in 30 days crosses the threshold from plausible coincidence to probable pattern.
The 30-day window matters because patterns spread over longer periods are harder to connect (the first occurrence fades from memory) while patterns within a single week might reflect temporary conditions rather than structural causes. Thirty days provides enough temporal distance to filter out momentary conditions while remaining short enough for context-rich recall.
Classifying something as a "pattern candidate" is deliberately weaker than declaring it a "pattern." The classification triggers investigation — structural analysis to determine whether the recurrence has a shared cause — rather than premature conclusion. Some three-time recurrences turn out to be genuine coincidences. But the investigation cost is low compared to the cost of ignoring a real structural pattern.
When This Fires
- The same frustration, error, or reaction occurs for the third time in a month
- A colleague makes the same complaint about your work or process for the third time
- The same type of bug appears for the third time in different contexts
- Any recurrence that you've been treating as independent events
Common Failure Mode
Treating each occurrence as independent because the surface details differ: "The Monday frustration was about the meeting, the Wednesday frustration was about the email, the Friday frustration was about the code review." The surface details differ, but the structural pattern (being excluded from decisions) might be identical. Pattern detection requires looking beneath surface differences to structural similarities.
The Protocol
When something recurs for the third time in 30 days: (1) Flag it as a pattern candidate. (2) List all three occurrences with dates and contexts. (3) Ask: "What structural factor is common across these occurrences?" Look beneath surface differences for shared triggers, shared environments, or shared actors. (4) If a structural factor emerges → investigate and address the cause. If no structural factor is apparent after analysis → log and monitor for a fourth occurrence.