Change and Constants Framework

Activate when: 'we keep debating whether to pivot or stay the course', 'I don't know what we should never change', 'is this signal or noise?', 'the market shifted — what do we hold onto?', 'we're paralyzed between adapting and staying true to who we are'. Do NOT activate when: the decision is purely operational (which vendor, which tool) with no strategic identity implications; all elements clearly fall into one category and the team already has consensus.

Overview

Every strategy contains elements that must change and elements that must not. The failure mode is misclassification: treating habits as principles, or principles as outdated conventions. The framework sorts on two axes: 变 (Must Change) and 不变 (Must Stay Constant) — they are complements, not opposites.

Skill composition: AFTER [first-principles] to strip convention; WITH [second-order-thinking] to check if "constants" are only temporarily stable; BEFORE [okr-goal-setting] — goals = 变; core values = 不变.

When to Use

• Major environmental shift demands strategic response and the team is paralyzed on what to adapt vs. preserve
• Organizational identity is unclear: cannot distinguish "this is who we are" from "this is what we've always done"
• Leader/board asks: "What should we never compromise on?" or "Is this signal or noise?"
• Retrospective after failure: distinguish bad implementation of a sound constant vs. faithful adherence to an outdated variable

When NOT to use: purely operational decisions (vendor, tool) without strategic identity implications; genuine emergencies (use OODA instead); using the framework to avoid deciding by treating all elements as equivalent.

Coaching Novices (Adaptive Front Door)

• Engine mode: concrete case → run The Process directly.
• Coach mode: unfamiliar user → guide step by step.

In Coach mode, respond one step at a time. Each [WAIT] is a hard stop — output only that step's question, then stop.

1. What-it-is: "变/不变 sorts everything in your strategy into 'must adapt' or 'must preserve' using two explicit tests, not intuition."
2. Check fit: "Is there a situation where you're unclear whether to change something — caught between adapting and staying true to who you are?"
3. Elicit their case: "What are you navigating? Which things feel like they might need to change, and which should never change?"

[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]

4. Run The Process step by step with their input — list elements first, then Test A, then Test B.

[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]

5. Close by naming which things they had been treating as constants that are actually habits.

[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]

The Process

Output artifact: Change-Constants Map

Gate rule: Both tests required for every element. "It feels like a core value" fails the gate.

Step 1 — List all major elements (strategic choices, operations, culture, values, relationships, resource allocation). Target 10–20. No pre-sorting.

Step 2 — Apply two tests to each element.

• Test A (Irreversible damage): "Would changing this violate a bedrock value or cause irreversible damage?" YES → 不变 candidate. NO → 变 candidate.
• Test B (Blind spot): "Would keeping this unchanged leave us blind to environmental shifts?" YES → 变 candidate. NO → 不变 candidate. Both YES = genuine tension → return to first principles. Both NO = stably 不变.

Step 3 — Sort with explicit WHY. Record category, which test, and one sentence why. "Always done it this way" is not a valid why.

Step 4 — Identify dangerous misclassifications. Scan 不变 for habit-based entries. New-entrant test: would a new org call this a foundational principle or outdated convention? At least one element must move from 不变 to 变.

Step 5 — Design adaptation mechanisms. For each 变 element: specific change, timeline, decision owner, observable trigger signal.

Stop-rule: All-elements-in-one-category = framework not applied. Both lists must be populated.

Output: Change-Constants Map

text

## Change-Constants Map — [Entity] — [Date]
### 不变 | Element | Test | Why it is a constant
### 变    | Element | Test | Why it must change | Mechanism | Trigger | Owner
### Dangerous Misclassifications: [elements moved from 不变 to 变 + reason]
### Tension Points: [elements failing both tests + first-principles resolution]

→ Method in Action: The U.S. Constitution's Design, 1787–Present

Change-Constants Packs

Domain packs extend the framework. Contribution surface — submit via the repo.

• Tech / platform shifts: Revenue model = 变 (unit economics shift). Brand values = 不变; visual language = 变. Core architecture may be 不变 if it encodes hard-won learning.
• Personal career: Ethical principles = 不变 (Test A). Specific skills = 变 (Test B). Practice of continuous learning = 不变; what you learn = 变.
• Org culture / rapid growth: "Move fast" = startup-phase behavior = 变. Customer outcomes commitment = 不变. Specific rituals = 变; their purpose = 不变.

→ Primary sources: references/sources.md

Applying It Well

1. Decompose before classifying — "brand" splits into values (不变), expression (变), architecture (context-dependent).
2. Habit is the enemy — most dangerous misclassifications are always in 不变, for things never questioned.
3. Constants need active maintenance — values not demonstrated erode without a conscious decision.
4. Mechanism as important as classification — vague intentions to "be agile" are not mechanisms.
5. Team artifact, not solo — disagreements reveal absent shared understanding of identity.

Common Rationalizations

[D] = designed upfront | [O] = observed in real use. [O] entries are more valuable.

Fake move	Reality
[D] "Our [process/tool] is a core value, so it can't change."	Processes are expressions of values, not the values themselves.
[D] "Everything is changing, so we need to be 100% flexible."	No constants = no identity; cannot make credible commitments.
[D] "We've always done it this way, so it must be working."	Duration of practice is not evidence of correctness.
[D] "Our core competence is [X], so we can't change [X]."	Core competences must be dynamically renewed each technology cycle.
[D] "We identified our constants years ago — no need to revisit."	Constants are relative to an environment; old maps are dangerously outdated.
[D] "Our culture is special, so none of it can change."	Culture = values (不变) + practices (often 变). Conflating them treats habits as sacred.
[D] "This is too important to change, so it must be a constant."	Importance is not the classification criterion.
→ Add [O] entries here after each real use — paste the actual failure pattern	What went wrong and why

Red Flags

• 不变 has only stated values — no demonstrated behaviors; or every challenged element ends up in 不变
• 变 contains only peripheral items; foundational assumptions never examined
• Team cannot answer "what would we need to see to move this from 不变 to 变?"
• Map not revisited in 12+ months despite significant environmental change

Verification

• All elements listed before sorting; both Test A and Test B applied to each
• Every element has a written "why" — habit-based reasoning flagged
• At least one element moved from 不变 to 变 after misclassification check
• Every 变 element has mechanism, trigger, and owner; both lists populated
• Tension points noted; review cadence set (next inflection or 12 months)

---

Part of deciqAI Knowledge Skills — open-source thinking skills that make rigor executable for AI agents. Built by deciqAI · https://deciqai.com · Contributions welcome — see the template at the repo root.