Concepts
The irreducible epistemic atoms underlying the curriculum. 4,828 atoms across 8 types
Assign criterion weights before scoring options — knowing…
When building a decision matrix, assign criterion weights before scoring any options to prevent unconscious adjustment of weights toward your pre-existing preference.
Score by criterion across options, not by option across…
Score one criterion at a time across all options rather than one option at a time across all criteria, to force apples-to-apples comparison and reduce halo effects.
Every decision framework needs five explicit components
For each decision framework you build, explicitly include five components: evaluation criteria, sequence of evaluation, time budget, kill conditions (automatic disqualifiers), and decision rights (who decides, who is consulted).
For reversible decisions, act at 50-60% information…
For reversible decisions, act when you have 50-60% of desired information because experiential learning from outcomes typically exceeds information gain from additional deliberation.
After irreversible commitments, schedule external reviews…
After making irreversible commitments, schedule reviews with someone uninvolved in the original decision and define success/failure criteria in advance, because escalation of commitment will corrupt your post-decision assessment.
Before committing to a one-way door, search for ways…
When facing a one-way door decision, actively search for ways to restructure it into a two-way door through trial periods, exit clauses, smaller pilots, or phased rollouts before committing to the heavyweight deliberation process.
Two-way door decisions with sub-week reversal costs get 24…
For two-way door decisions where reversal costs under one week of effort, set a decision deadline of 24 hours or less regardless of how the decision feels emotionally.
Define rollback metrics and automated reversal triggers…
When implementing feature flags, canary deployments, or A/B tests, treat the deployment decision as a two-way door by defining rollback metrics and automated reversal triggers before deployment.
For two-way doors with persistent disagreement, invoke…
When disagreement persists on a two-way door decision after expressing positions, invoke 'disagree and commit'—explicitly state disagreement, commit to supporting the chosen path, and move forward immediately without seeking consensus.
Apply the 37% rule to search decisions — explore…
When hiring or making other search-based decisions from a known pool size, spend the first 37% of candidates or options in pure exploration (reject all, calibrate threshold), then commit to the next candidate that exceeds the best seen in the exploration phase.
Reduce options to 5-7 before evaluating — choice overload…
For decisions where options number more than 7, either reduce the option set to 5-7 before evaluation or use elimination criteria to filter before detailed comparison, because choice overload degrades both decision quality and satisfaction above this threshold.
Design pre-commitments when calm to constrain behavior…
Design pre-commitment rules during cold cognitive states (well-rested, calm, not under deadline pressure) to constrain behavior during hot cognitive states (stressed, depleted, emotionally activated), never vice versa.
Decision journal entries need six fields captured before…
When recording a decision in a journal, capture six mandatory elements before outcome is known: date/time, one-sentence decision, reasoning chain, expected outcome (falsifiable), confidence percentage, and current mental/physical state.
Review decisions in three steps
When reviewing decision journal entries, follow the three-step sequence: (1) re-read original reasoning with outcome hidden, (2) predict outcome based only on original reasoning, (3) uncover actual outcome and compare all three—this sequence defeats hindsight bias.
After 30+ journal entries, calculate your calibration…
Across 30+ decision journal entries, calculate your calibration by grouping decisions by stated confidence level (e.g., all 70% predictions) and checking whether that percentage actually occurred—use this ratio to adjust future confidence statements.
Evaluate decision process separately from outcome — 'was…
When reviewing decision outcomes, evaluate process quality independently from result quality by asking 'given what was knowable at decision time, was the reasoning sound?' rather than 'did it work out?'
Decide at 70% information — waiting for 90%+ almost always…
Apply the 70% information threshold: if you have 70% of the information you wish you had, decide immediately—waiting for 90%+ almost always costs more than the improved decision quality returns.
Review all installed defaults quarterly — outdated…
Schedule quarterly reviews of every default you have installed in your systems and processes, because contexts change and outdated defaults silently steer toward yesterday's goals without conscious detection.
Before purchasing, name what else the money could buy…
Before committing to any purchase decision, explicitly name what else that money could buy in different categories (not just competitor products), because mental retrieval naturally limits alternatives to within-category competitors and misses the highest-value cross-category tradeoffs.
Calculate optimization breakeven time — if payback exceeds…
When evaluating whether to optimize an existing system, calculate breakeven time by dividing optimization effort by weekly time savings—if payback exceeds the system's expected remaining lifespan, redirect effort to the actual constraint instead.
Delegate any decision reversible within one week at low…
Apply the irreversibility test to every delegation candidate: if the decision can be reversed at low cost within one week, delegate it regardless of its perceived importance; if reversal is expensive or impossible, retain it for your direct judgment.
Every delegation needs three written components
For every delegated decision, specify three mandatory components in writing: the single accountable owner (one person not a committee), the constraints within which they have full authority, and the explicit conditions that trigger escalation back to you.
For 6+ person decisions, collect independent written…
When a decision requires input from six or more people with distributed expertise, use independent written assessment before any group discussion—have each person write their recommendation anonymously, compile responses, then discuss—to prevent anchoring and social hierarchy from suppressing better information.
Use consent-based decisions for speed+buy-in — proceed…
For operational decisions requiring both speed and buy-in, use consent-based decision making: present a proposal and proceed unless someone articulates a specific reasoned objection (how it would prevent achieving goals), rather than seeking consensus (positive agreement from everyone).