Concepts
The irreducible epistemic atoms underlying the curriculum. 4,828 atoms across 8 types
Schedule reviews at intervals shorter than natural…
Schedule forcing functions (weekly reviews, monthly retrospectives, quarterly strategy assessments) at intervals shorter than the natural feedback latency to artificially tighten loops that cannot be structurally accelerated.
Document every deviation from standards — repeated silent…
Treat any deviation from established standards as a potential normalization-of-deviance signal requiring documented evaluation rather than silent acceptance, because repeated deviations without consequence train the system to accept the deviation as normal.
Reverse a vicious cycle by flipping one node's signal…
Convert vicious cycles into virtuous ones by intervening at a single node to reverse signal direction rather than attempting to dismantle the entire loop structure, because loop topology is often more stable than loop content.
Diagnose broken loops by mapping onto…
Map any broken feedback loop onto the four-part structure (Act, Observe, Evaluate, Adjust) to diagnose which specific component is missing, because each missing part produces a distinct failure signature.
Before correcting in a delayed system, inventory pending…
Before adding corrective action in a delayed-feedback system, inventory pending actions already taken but not yet producing results to avoid pipeline overfilling and subsequent overshoot.
Validate new feedback mechanisms in the first cycle
For each feedback mechanism you build, verify within the first cycle that the data reveals something unknown, that measurement effort is sustainable, and that you can specify one concrete adjustment based on results—if any component fails, redesign before continuing.
Audit decision-driving metrics every 3 months
When a metric has been used to drive decisions for more than three months without revision, conduct a three-question audit: what behavior does this metric actually incentivize, is the proxy still correlated with the outcome, and what would gaming this metric look like compared to current behavior.
When improvement stalls despite effort, shift…
When improvement effort in a domain has stalled despite sustained attention, shift focus from single-loop correction (adjusting actions) to double-loop correction (questioning the framework generating actions) by explicitly listing and testing the assumptions underlying your approach.
Design a degraded-mode version of every recurring system…
When building any recurring system (workflow, habit, routine), design an explicit degraded-mode version that preserves core function at reduced scope before the system encounters its first disruption.
Classify errors as execution, knowledge, or judgment…
For each detected error in a system, explicitly classify whether it represents an execution failure (wrong doing), knowledge failure (missing information), or judgment failure (incorrect assessment) before designing any correction.
Recurring errors with the same root cause need structural…
When an error recurs with the same root cause across multiple independent instances, apply structural fixes (process changes, environmental redesign, automated checks) rather than effort-based resolutions (increased attention, more discipline, trying harder).
Match correction type to error type
For execution errors, deploy procedural corrections (checklists, automation, environmental forcing functions); for knowledge errors, deploy epistemic corrections (new information sources, expert consultation); for judgment errors, deploy calibrational corrections (prediction tracking, external review, pre-mortems).
Define your error budget in writing
For any system you operate, define four components in writing: (1) ideal behavior, (2) minimum acceptable behavior, (3) numeric deviation threshold, and (4) time window before triggering investigation.
When error budget is exhausted, analyze the pattern…
When error budget exhaustion occurs in a tracked system, conduct root cause analysis of the pattern rather than investigating individual deviations, because budget exhaustion signals structural problems while individual errors within budget represent normal variance.
A true root cause, eliminated, makes the error impossible…
Test root cause validity by asking whether eliminating the identified cause would make the error impossible rather than merely less frequent—if only frequency decreases, continue deeper analysis.
When 'why' has multiple independent answers, branch…
When asking 'why' produces multiple independent answers, branch the Five Whys analysis to follow each causal path separately rather than selecting one primary cause, because multi-causal problems require tree structures not chains.
Add verification checkpoints at every coupling point where…
Insert independent verification checkpoints at every coupling point where one process automatically consumes another's output without review to interrupt error cascade chains before they amplify.
When correction exceeds 20% of weekly capacity, shift…
When error correction consumes more than 20% of weekly capacity in a domain, shift resources from faster correction to upstream prevention mechanisms that reduce error generation rate.
Decompose error handling into four independent subsystems
Separate error detection, diagnosis, correction, and learning into independent subsystems so each can be improved independently and partial failure doesn't disable the entire error-handling architecture.
Find the leading indicator that appears days before…
For recurring errors, identify the leading indicator that appears days or weeks before full manifestation, not hours, because late signals provide insufficient time for corrective action to prevent the error.
Define non-overlapping agent scopes — scope collisions…
Design cognitive agents with non-overlapping scopes by defining exactly which situations, resources, or decisions each agent claims authority over, treating scope collisions as architecture problems requiring boundary redefinition rather than willpower failures.
Agent priority orderings must be context-specific — which…
Build priority orderings that are context-specific rather than global, defining which agent takes precedence during specific time blocks, capacity states, or situational contexts rather than attempting universal rankings.
Diagnose priority paralysis with Coffman conditions…
Before attempting to resolve paralysis between competing priorities, check whether all four Coffman conditions hold (mutual exclusion, hold-and-wait, no preemption, circular wait)—if so, violate any single condition to make deadlock structurally impossible.
Match allocation mechanism to contention structure…
When multiple goals compete for the same scarce resource, match the allocation mechanism to dependency structure—use priority queue when importance differs, rotation when all are equal, and time-slicing when multiple need access within the same period.