Loading insights…
Loading insights…
Loading insights…
Topic
Getting the meaning of a number settled before it is built on — so teams act on figures they actually agree on.
Conceptual Debt · Part 1
A team can ship a faithful, well-built, fully-tested solution and still be wrong — because the fault sits in the concept underneath, not the build. I call that conceptual debt: the gap between the concept your work encodes and the concept the problem actually has. It hides because every test you run checks whether the structure matches the definition, and the broken thing is the definition.
Conceptual Debt · Part 2
Someone almost always sees the wrong concept coming and says so — and the room is right, by its own arithmetic, to wave them off. Two structural mechanisms do it: the concept fragments along the org's communication lines until no one holds it whole, and a value you can't score until next year loses every argument to two you can score this afternoon. Neither is carelessness, which is why "be more rigorous" has never fixed it.
Conceptual Debt · Part 3
You can't test in advance for the talent that names the case a concept can't represent — confident performers fake the tells, and real definers sometimes present as pedants. So stop certifying the person and verify the work instead: a one-page concept decision record — the term, the competing definitions, the decision, what it rejected, and a dated, owned prediction of how it will break — turns an unverifiable claim into a credential a non-expert can read after the fact.