Skip to content

judgment-infrastructure-demo.md

Latest commit

 

History

History
87 lines (60 loc) · 3.26 KB

judgment-infrastructure-demo.md

File metadata and controls

87 lines (60 loc) · 3.26 KB
Raw

Judgment Infrastructure Demo

This demo shows how the four skills work together. The point is not to force every situation through every skill. The point is to show the full loop: make the mess legible, challenge the thinking, deliberate the decision, and create evidence before commitment.

Scenario

Our team thinks onboarding is too complicated. Sales says prospects ask for simpler setup.
Support says new customers are confused by permissions. Product says activation is stable.
Data says the problem may only affect enterprise customers. Leadership wants to know whether
we should rebuild onboarding next quarter or focus on segmentation and targeted setup help.

Step 1: Make the Mess Legible

Use The Briefing Room.

Use The Briefing Room on this messy context. Separate facts, claims, assumptions, tensions,
contradictions, open questions, and the best next use.

Expected result:

  • Facts are separated from claims.
  • The activation-versus-confusion tension becomes visible.
  • The brief identifies whether the context is ready for critique, decision, research, or testing.

Step 2: Challenge the Thinking

Use Ground Truth on the brief.

Use Ground Truth on this brief. Do not validate the current diagnosis by default. Identify
the weakest assumption, strongest counterargument, missing evidence, and what should happen
before we commit roadmap time.

Expected result:

  • The skill challenges the jump from "users are confused" to "rebuild onboarding."
  • It names alternative explanations such as segment mismatch, sales handoff, permissions complexity, or metric blind spots.
  • It recommends evidence before commitment.

Step 3: Deliberate the Decision

Use The Quorum if leadership needs a real decision.

Use The Quorum on this decision: should we rebuild onboarding next quarter, or run a targeted
diagnostic path around segment-specific onboarding friction first? Preserve disagreement and
give me a calibrated recommendation with a pre-mortem.

Expected result:

  • Multiple lenses independently assess the trade-off.
  • The council distinguishes urgency, reversibility, execution cost, and political pressure.
  • The chairman gives a calibrated recommendation and preserves high-conviction dissent.

Step 4: Create Evidence

Use Test Drive on the recommended path.

Use Test Drive to design the smallest credible test for whether onboarding complexity is the
real problem. Include evidence type, smallest credible test, artifact needed, connector path,
approval gate, support signals, weaken signals, and learning loop.

Expected result:

  • The skill identifies the evidence type: human reaction plus behavioral/data evidence.
  • It proposes a small test, such as reviewing onboarding sessions by segment and comparing failure tags with activation and support tickets.
  • It names connector needs and manual fallbacks.
  • It defines what would support, weaken, or change the plan.

What This Shows

The bundle is not a chain of prompts. It is a judgment loop:

  1. The Briefing Room makes context readable.
  2. Ground Truth keeps the reasoning honest.
  3. The Quorum helps with consequential trade-offs.
  4. Test Drive creates evidence before commitment.

Use the smallest part of the loop that matches the situation.