The irreducible epistemic atoms underlying the curriculum. 4,828 atoms across 8 types and 2 molecules
After encountering AI recommendations that contradict your careful analysis, apply three filters in sequence: Does this present unconsidered evidence? Does this identify verifiable reasoning errors? Does it merely state a different conclusion without showing work? Only the first two warrant revision.
When self-trust gaps appear, classify them as either competence deficits (lack skill/knowledge) or calibration errors (possess competence but don't trust it), because these require fundamentally different interventions—training for the former, evidence collection for the latter.
Extract values from peak experiences by identifying recurring conditions across 5+ moments of deep engagement, not from the surface activities themselves.
Record resentment triggers using the four-step protocol: notice the resentment, identify the specific trigger event, name the violated value, externalize it in writing.
When the same value violation triggers resentment across three or more independent contexts, treat that value as core rather than situational.
When counterfactual scenarios (optimized futures) produce strong resistance rather than pull, the resistance reveals non-negotiable values that define your identity boundaries.
Before accepting a value as truly yours, trace its origin to the earliest point you can remember holding it and evaluate whether you had the developmental capacity to choose it deliberately at that time.
When a value shift occurs, document both the old value and the triggering experience in a timestamped changelog rather than overwriting your value records, because the trajectory of revision contains information that the current state alone cannot provide.
Before declaring a value conflict irresolvable, verify that both values are truly terminal rather than instrumental—many apparent conflicts between values dissolve when you discover one is actually a means to the other.
When facing a decision between two conflicting values, name both values explicitly in writing side-by-side before choosing, then articulate the specific sacrifice being made ('I am choosing X over Y today because ___') to make the trade-off conscious rather than implicit.
When two values conflict in a decision and you cannot satisfy both, consult your pre-established lexicographic hierarchy—satisfy the higher-ranked value first, then optimize for the lower-ranked value within that constraint.
Force-rank values through pairwise comparison ('If I could only honor one of these two, which would I choose?') rather than attempting top-down global ranking, because pairwise comparison bypasses social desirability bias and reveals actual preferences.
Test your stated values hierarchy against three past difficult decisions to verify whether it produces the choices you actually made—if it doesn't, either the hierarchy is miscalibrated or the past choices violated your values, and both discoveries are actionable.
Define each abstract value with operational specificity by writing one to three sentences that would enable an observer to predict your behavior in concrete situations, not dictionary definitions.
For each articulated value, specify one concrete behavior you will perform this week that demonstrates the value—if you cannot name the behavior, the articulation lacks operational specificity and needs revision.
Write a disqualification test for each stated value—a specific condition that would prove the value is aspirational rather than operative—to distinguish values you hold from values you wish you held.
Construct three escalating hypothetical trade-off scenarios for each core value where preserving the value requires sacrificing progressively larger competing goods, writing what you would actually do (not what you think you should do) to reveal the value's true weight in your hierarchy.
Use the pre-mortem frame 'Given that I compromised [value], what were the circumstances?' rather than 'Would I ever compromise this value?' to bypass identity-defense mechanisms and reveal actual vulnerability conditions.
When someone's behavior frustrates you, generate a hypothesis about which value they were honoring (not which value they violated) to shift from projection to perspective-taking before responding.
Generate at least one scenario where someone else's value hierarchy would produce a better outcome than yours—if you cannot construct such a scenario, you have not separated your values from your identity.
When sacred values collide in tragic trade-offs, resolve by pre-established hierarchy and explicitly accept the cost—attempting to treat all sacred values as equally weighted guarantees paralysis whenever they conflict.
Test for post-hoc rationalization by asking whether you consulted your values hierarchy before choosing or constructed a values-based story afterward—if values only appeared in the narrative after the decision, they were comfort mechanisms, not decision inputs.
When autonomously motivated work drains energy despite adequate rest and manageable workload, audit values-behavior alignment before adjusting workload or seeking medical intervention.
When a value eliminates all decision options but one, test whether you have fused the value with a rigid rule; if it eliminates none, test whether the value has degraded into abstract decoration.