Six Decision Lenses (Before You Start the Next Project)
Or: how to stop solving today’s problem while tomorrow quietly resets itself.
Source: ~/Downloads/Compounding,-Leverage,-Systems-thinking.json
Phase: 3 (Texture final)
Previous: Phase2 - Freeze
Next: (hub / human ship gate)
Status: hub-revised openings (trajectory-first)
Pipeline: CONSTITUTION - Publishable Asset Pipeline
Index: 00 - Downloads Batch Map Index (row 07, Compounding leverage systems)
Example path only: 02 - Draft Article - Superordinate Terms
Orientation: Phase1 - Orientation
How this one actually started
It did not start as “I want a systems textbook.”
It started closer to: we keep talking compounding, leverage, systems thinking, and half of me is checking whether this is real fire or confident nonsense. Then a pivot into the practical ask: if I am about to start a project, how do I actually approach it? Then a request to unpack six lenses (leverage, compounding, asset creation, optionality, feedback loops, system fit) in plain language with content-world examples, not MBA fog. Then the intro problem: how would you even open this for a stranger? Then an explicit scope cut: enough for a dense playbook spine; advanced material can wait for part two.
So the spine of this piece is not “why learning is fun.” It is:
Before you start the next project, which six questions change the decision, and how do you say them so a non-systems person still gets the levers?
The explanations below are the solid unpacking of those lenses. Use them as a decision game you can run on a real project today.
What this is actually for
Most people do not wake up wanting “systems thinking.” They want fewer wasted loops, better project choices, and work that pays back tomorrow.
So treat the six lenses as a decision game for a real project, not a certificate.
1. Why smart people keep solving the same problems
Quick pause. Before leverage. Before feedback loops. Before any of the six.
Almost everyone has experienced this.
- They clean their room.
It gets messy again. - They lose weight.
Gain it back. - They write one great article.
Then struggle to write another. - They solve today’s problem…
…without changing tomorrow.
Everyone relates to this.
So begin with one simple idea:
There are two ways to improve life.
- Solve today’s problem.
- Improve the system that keeps producing tomorrow.
That’s it.
Nothing about leverage yet.
Nothing about feedback loops.
Just this distinction.
If your head already wants jargon: hold. We will get there. First, the kitchen.
2. Outcomes vs engines (meals vs kitchens)
Live thought energy: are you collecting meals, or building a kitchen?
Imagine two restaurants.
Restaurant A serves amazing food.
Restaurant B has an amazing kitchen.
One meal is an outcome.
The kitchen is an engine.
If the chef leaves…
Restaurant A struggles.
Restaurant B keeps producing great meals.
Then ask:
“What are you building in your own life?”
Most people realize…
They’ve been chasing meals.
Not building kitchens.
Play with this for a second: a finished LinkedIn post is a meal. A reusable research workflow is a kitchen. Both matter. Only one keeps feeding Future You when the chef is tired.
3. Linear path vs systems path
This is the cut. What does “not using this mindset” look like when you are not reading a business book?
Business: customers
Imagine two founders.
Founder 1 (linear) wants more customers. Their thinking goes like this:
Need customers.
↓
Run ads.
↓
Get customers.
↓
Need more customers.
↓
Run more ads.
Nothing wrong with it.
It’s a perfectly valid chain.
Founder 2 starts asking different questions:
Need customers.
↓
Why only ads?
↓
Can customers bring customers?
↓
Can content keep working after it's published?
↓
Can the product generate referrals?
↓
Can education reduce support costs?
↓
Can onboarding increase retention?
↓
Can happy customers create testimonials?
Notice something?
The goal changed from:
“Get customers.”
to
“Design a customer acquisition system.”
That’s the systems shift.
Fitness: muscles
Linear fitness:
Want muscles.
↓
Go gym.
↓
Lift.
↓
Eat.
↓
Sleep.
↓
Repeat.
Again…
Nothing wrong.
Millions of people do exactly this.
Systems fitness starts asking:
How do I make workouts impossible to skip?
↓
Gym near office?
↓
Workout partner?
↓
Habit tracking?
↓
Meal prep?
↓
Sleep quality?
↓
Stress?
↓
Recovery?
↓
Progress tracking?
↓
Identity?
↓
Environment?
Suddenly the workout isn’t the system.
The workout is one component inside the system.
The object of optimization
Here’s the interesting observation.
Linear thinkers often optimize actions.
Systems thinkers often optimize conditions.
For example…
Linear:
“I need more discipline.”
Systems:
“What environment would require less discipline?”
Linear:
“I need to write more.”
Systems:
“What workflow would naturally produce writing?”
Linear:
“I need motivation.”
Systems:
“What feedback loop would make motivation less necessary?”
Notice how the object of optimization changes.
Optional edge, if you like staying open: when a problem has rich structure to discover, some minds light up. When the work is only repetitive and low-novelty, performance can drop. That is not a moral story. It is context sensitivity. A more useful question than “how do I become consistently exceptional?” is: “How do I build systems that make it more likely my strengths are the ones being exercised?”
That is already a systems question.
4. Wait. Is this how people normally think?
Honest itch: if this feels like common sense once you see it, why does it still need teaching?
The short answer is:
No, this is not how most people consciously think.
But there’s an important nuance.
Most people use some of these ideas sometimes.
Very few people use them consistently as a decision-making framework.
That’s the difference.
Think of it like this.
Imagine asking someone:
“Should I buy this machine for my factory?”
A lot of experienced entrepreneurs will naturally think,
“Will this save time?”
That’s leverage.
Another entrepreneur might think,
“Will this let us enter new markets?”
That’s optionality.
Someone else might think,
“Will it reduce mistakes?”
That’s feedback loops.
They’re using these ideas…
…without ever calling them leverage, optionality, or feedback loops.
The concepts are common.
The systematic use of them is much less common.
In one line:
Most people are capable of systems thinking, but many default to optimizing the next action. Systems thinkers more often optimize the structure that produces the actions.
To some people, asking “Can I reuse this later?” feels obvious.
To someone else… the project ends the moment it’s delivered. They genuinely don’t think “Could this become five future assets?” Not because they can’t. Because that question never occurs to them.
If that landed: good. The game is not inventing new genius. It is making the questions show up on purpose.
5. The six decision lenses (core)
Forget MBA jargon for a minute. Forget money theater.
Imagine you’re playing a video game.
Every day you have:
- 10 Energy
- 10 Time
- 10 Attention
The question is:
“How do I spend these points so that Future Me becomes ridiculously stronger?”
That’s all these lenses are trying to answer.
Keep the six as questions, not guru principles. The word is only a handle. The tilt is the tool.
Lens 1. Leverage
”Can one action accomplish many things?”
Imagine two students.
Student A
Reads one chapter.
Learns one chapter.
Done.
Student B
Reads one chapter.
Then:
- Makes notes.
- Creates flashcards.
- Explains it to a friend.
- Draws a diagram.
Same chapter.
Four outputs.
Student B extracted much more value from the same effort.
That’s leverage.
Content example
Suppose you research:
Why people procrastinate.
Option A
Research
→ Write LinkedIn post
Done.
Option B
Research
→ LinkedIn carousel
→ Blog
→ YouTube video
→ Excalidraw sketch
→ Prompt
→ Future workshop example
→ Personal notes
Same research.
Different leverage.
The effort stayed almost constant.
The value multiplied.
Companion phrasing: “If I spend one unit of effort, how much value comes back?”
Low leverage: spend 5 hours writing one LinkedIn post.
Higher leverage: spend 5 hours building a framework that becomes a LinkedIn post, a blog, a video, a workshop, and an AI knowledge base.
Same effort. More output.
Lens 2. Compounding
”Does today’s work help tomorrow’s work?”
This is my favorite mental picture.
Imagine climbing a mountain.
Path A
Every day someone destroys yesterday’s stairs.
Tomorrow you start again.
Path B
Every day you build one extra stair.
Tomorrow…
You begin from the highest stair you’ve ever built.
That’s compounding.
Content example
Research Topic A.
Instead of forgetting it…
You save:
- examples
- analogies
- references
- diagrams
Now Topic B arrives.
Half the work is already done.
Every project becomes easier.
You’re climbing using yesterday’s stairs.
Companion phrasing: “Will this make future work easier?”
Learning one random fact doesn’t compound much.
Building a reusable research workflow does.
Every project should leave you with something that makes the next project faster.
Lens 3. Asset creation
”Am I consuming effort or building something?”
Think LEGO.
Imagine two kids.
Kid A
Builds a castle.
Breaks it.
Gone.
Kid B
Keeps every LEGO brick.
Next castle.
Even bigger.
Nothing was wasted.
That’s an asset.
Content is the same.
Post disappears.
Framework remains.
Diagram remains.
Prompt remains.
Knowledge remains.
Those are assets.
Example
You spend six hours learning:
Memory.
Option A
You remember it.
Eventually forget.
Option B
You create:
- notes
- diagrams
- flashcards
- examples
- analogies
Those become permanent tools.
Companion phrasing: “Am I creating something I can reuse?”
Person A writes a blog. Done.
Person B creates research notes, a framework, a visual diagram, a prompt, examples, an article, a video script. Now they own intellectual property.
The article disappears into the internet.
The assets stay with you.
Lens 4. Optionality
”Will this create more future choices?”
Imagine you’re playing Pokémon.
You teach Pikachu only one move.
That’s fine.
Now imagine Pikachu knows:
- Thunderbolt
- Iron Tail
- Quick Attack
- Volt Switch
Suddenly…
Many battles become easier.
You have options.
Content example
Suppose you learn:
Excalidraw.
Now you can:
- make LinkedIn posts
- teach
- consult
- make YouTube videos
- create courses
- explain products
One skill.
Five opportunities.
Companion phrasing: “Does this give Future Me more choices?”
Suppose you learn video editing, Excalidraw, AI workflows.
Suddenly you can become consultant, educator, creator, product builder, marketer.
One skill. Many futures.
That’s optionality.
Lens 5. Feedback loops
”How quickly do I learn whether I’m improving?”
Imagine learning basketball.
Version A
Practice alone.
For one year.
Then play your first match.
You’ll discover every mistake at once.
Version B
Practice.
Play every weekend.
Each week:
“Oh… My passing sucks.”
Next week.
“Oh… Defense improved.”
Fast feedback.
Fast improvement.
Content example
Write twenty posts.
Never publish.
No feedback.
Or…
Publish every week.
People comment:
“This example confused me.”
“This diagram helped.”
Now your next post becomes better.
Reality is teaching you.
Companion phrasing: “How quickly do I know if I’m wrong?”
Imagine building something for six months before showing anyone.
Terrible feedback loop.
Now imagine posting sketches every week.
People react immediately.
Your system improves much faster.
Fast feedback beats perfect planning.
Lens 6. System fit
”Does this strengthen everything else I’m already building?”
Imagine owning a garden.
Someone gives you a beautiful cactus.
Problem…
Your whole garden is tropical.
Now…
One plant needs completely different care.
It doesn’t fit.
Now imagine someone gives you another mango tree.
Perfect.
Same water.
Same soil.
Same fertilizer.
Everything benefits together.
Content example
Imagine tomorrow someone pays you well to write:
“Top 50 Casino Slot Reviews.”
Money?
Good.
But…
Does it improve:
- Psychology knowledge?
- Systems thinking?
- Excalidraw?
- AI research?
- Personal brand?
- Future consulting?
Not really.
Poor fit.
Now someone asks:
“Explain Retrieval Practice using AI examples.”
Suddenly…
- LinkedIn content
- Knowledge base
- YouTube
- Portfolio
- Teaching
- Future course
One project feeds everything.
6. Are these six separate tips, or one flywheel?
Do not lock the list yet. Notice something?
These six are not independent.
They reinforce each other.
Leverage
↓
Asset Creation
↓
Compounding
↓
More Optionality
↓
Better Feedback
↓
Stronger System Fit
↺
It’s almost a flywheel.
The magic happens when they combine
Imagine researching one psychology paper.
Instead of thinking:
“How do I understand this paper?”
You begin asking:
Leverage
Can this become five pieces of content?
↓
Compounding
Will this make future research easier?
↓
Asset Creation
What permanent things can I keep?
↓
Optionality
What future opportunities does this unlock?
↓
Feedback
How quickly can I test whether people understand it?
↓
System Fit
Does this strengthen the larger body of work as a whole?
If you only take one sentence:
Don’t just finish today’s task. Leave tomorrow’s version of yourself with more capability than today’s version started with.
That’s the common thread running through all of them.
7. Do I need a 100-page methodology?
Energy shift: you might be overestimating how much there is to “learn” here.
These six aren’t a formal methodology. They’re more like six questions that prevent you from accidentally taking the lowest-leverage path.
You don’t need a 100-page book on them. In fact, the opposite often works better. Just internalize the intuition.
Do you need to memorize them?
No.
You don’t have to print a poster on day one.
For daily mental load, reduce all six to three questions whenever you’re making a meaningful decision:
- Will this create reusable assets?
- Will this make future work easier or open more opportunities?
- Does this strengthen the ecosystem I’m already building?
If the answer to those three is “yes,” you’re probably making a high-quality decision.
Later tool note: a printable decision card with all six still earns a seat when you want a physical trigger. Three questions for walking-around load; the card for deliberate review. Different jobs. Not a contradiction.
8. Using the toolbox (when, and how many)
When should I run the six?
This is surprisingly important.
Imagine someone finishes the lenses.
They understand everything.
Then Monday morning arrives…
They’re back to working normally.
Because there was never a trigger.
When should I run the Six Lenses?
Run this framework whenever you’re about to invest meaningful:
- Time
- Money
- Attention
- Learning
- Career decisions
- Projects
- Relationships
- Habits
Basically…
Whenever the cost of a decision is high enough that a better decision compounds.
That’s enough.
Do I have to use all six every time?
No.
Sometimes only one lens matters.
Sometimes two.
Sometimes all six.
One paragraph solves this. Don’t turn the playbook into a religion.
One path through them together
Project
↓
Leverage
↓
Compounding
↓
Assets
↓
Optionality
↓
Feedback
↓
System Fit
↓
Decision
One complete worked example (the psychology paper above).
Five minutes.
Done.
Now you know exactly how to apply it.
9. Boundaries (so the tools don’t become superstition)
Stay thin for v1. This is a decision playbook, not a systems-science library.
Right level of intervention
People often optimize at the wrong level.
Imagine:
Problem:
“I don’t write consistently.”
Level 1
Improve typing speed.
Level 2
Improve writing routine.
Level 3
Build research workflow.
Level 4
Create knowledge system.
Same problem.
Different level.
This is probably the biggest insight systems thinking gives people.
Not every problem should be attacked where it appears.
Sometimes the solution exists one layer above.
Philosophy in one sentence:
Stop optimizing individual actions. Start designing the conditions that repeatedly produce good actions.
Everything else…
Leverage.
Compounding.
Feedback.
Optionality.
They’re just consequences of that philosophy.
Trade-offs (yes, really)
Systems always involve trade-offs.
For example:
High leverage… usually requires more setup.
Compounding… usually delays gratification.
Feedback… sometimes conflicts with perfection.
Optionality… can reduce focus if taken too far.
System fit… may mean saying no to attractive opportunities.
Without trade-offs…
People start believing every lens should always be maximized.
Reality doesn’t work that way.
What this is not
Systems thinking is enormous.
It includes ecology, economics, engineering, organizational design, cybernetics, complexity science, control theory, network science.
That could fill an entire library.
What this is closer to: a practical decision playbook for knowledge workers. The six lenses are Layer 2 decision tools. Deeper “see systems” material can wait for Part 2. That is design, not a hole.
10. Same six questions, many domains
Can the same six travel across content, business, fitness, learning, and career without becoming a new framework each time?
Yes. That is the point.
| Domain | What the lenses light up |
|---|---|
| Content / creator | Research once → multi-format stack; framework vs one post; publish weekly for feedback; high-pay low-fit gigs vs brand-aligned topics |
| Business / customers | Ads loop vs acquisition system; machine purchase as informal leverage / optionality / feedback |
| Fitness / habits | Gym action chain vs conditions design (environment, recovery, identity) |
| Learning / research | Student multi-output from one chapter; stairs compounding; notes and diagrams as assets |
| Career / freelancing | System fit: high pay / low fit vs project that feeds portfolio, teaching, consulting |
v1 can ship content-heavy with a couple of cross-domain contrasts. Relationships and finances can stay optional or Part 2.
Try it like a game, not homework: pick one real decision this week. Drop all six questions on it. If only two light up, that is still transfer. If they all fail, you learned the edge of the tool. That is play with teeth.
11. Practical tools (what you actually keep open)
The decision card
Before I commit...
1. Leverage
Can one action accomplish multiple outcomes?
2. Compounding
Will this make future work easier?
3. Asset Creation
Will I keep something valuable after I'm done?
4. Optionality
Does this create more future choices?
5. Feedback
How quickly will reality tell me if I'm wrong?
6. System Fit
Does this strengthen everything else I'm building?One page.
Printable.
Wallpaper.
Phone screenshot.
Done.
That single page probably becomes the most-used asset in the entire playbook.
Stranger-safe wording (if the labels feel cold)
Instead of saying Leverage:
Can this one action solve more than one problem?
Instead of Compounding:
Will Future Me thank Present Me?
Instead of Asset Creation:
Will something still exist after I’m done?
Instead of Optionality:
Does this create more doors than it closes?
Instead of Feedback Loops:
How quickly will reality correct me?
Instead of System Fit:
Does this strengthen everything else I’m building?
Notice something?
No jargon.
Just curiosity.
Decision journal
Instead of journaling only emotions.
Journal decisions.
Project
Leverage?
Compounding?
Assets?
Optionality?
Feedback?
System Fit?
Decision
Outcome (30 days later)
Suddenly the framework becomes experiential.
One master visual (intent)
This playbook wants a signature visual: one giant systems map that can become carousel, hero image, workshop slide, wallpaper.
One asset. Infinite reuse. (Build it when you want the next compound stair.)
12. How to introduce this to a stranger
Not with “reusable cognitive assets.”
Not with “you should care about systems thinking.”
Most books go:
Definition → Theory → Example
Reverse it.
Pain
↓
Question
↓
Observation
↓
Pattern
↓
Only then... name the concept
By the time you say “leverage”…
The reader already understands leverage.
The word simply gives a label to something they’ve already experienced.
The six lenses are not the whole book. They’re the toolbox chapter. The real transformation starts earlier: why smart people stay busy but don’t compound; seeing the invisible systems behind everyday life; then the six questions; then applications.
The six lenses are just the toolbox.
The transformation happens when the reader realizes there is a toolbox to begin with.
Positioning (public, not brand-ambassador)
Don’t call it only:
The Systems Thinking Playbook
Too broad. Too intimidating.
Call it something closer to:
6 Decision Lenses That Changed How I Start Every Project
or
Before You Start: Six Questions That Prevent Wasted Effort
or
The Systems Thinking Decision Lens
People don’t buy “systems thinking.”
People buy better decisions, less wasted effort, faster learning, better careers.
The systems thinking is the engine.
The promise is the destination.
Origin frame (grounded)
Don’t publish it as:
“Here’s my framework.”
Publish it as:
“For the last few weeks, I’ve noticed I kept asking myself the same six questions before starting any meaningful project. Eventually I realized they formed a reusable decision framework.”
That framing is stronger.
Why?
Because readers get to discover it with you.
You’re not claiming:
“I invented systems thinking.”
You’re saying:
“I noticed a pattern in how I make decisions.”
That’s a grounded, authentic origin story.
Closing. Leave the door open.
This never needed to be a systems funeral.
It started as a suspicion you can still play with tonight:
Don’t just finish today’s task. Leave tomorrow’s version of yourself with more capability than today’s version started with.
If you only take three moves:
- Before a meaningful spend of time, money, or attention, run the six questions (or the three-question compress).
- Prefer conditions and engines over one-off actions and meals.
- Let the flywheel reinforce: leverage → assets → compounding → optionality → feedback → system fit.
Ship line:
Yes. Ship it.
Not because it’s “complete.”
Because it’s complete enough to create value.
Then let reality do what it does best: teach you what deserves Part 2.
And if you remember nothing else:
Better decisions do not require a poker face.
You can design systems and still look like someone who is enjoying the chase.
Now go break one project plan on purpose. Gently. Curiously. With the six questions open if you want them.
Source note
Shaped from a guided conversation on compounding, leverage, and systems decision lenses. Question energy and gear-shifts follow the human orientation of that thread. Explanatory blocks are kept close to the original responses; personal digressions, interview packaging, Cursor automation, and redundant detours are cut. The steering is an invitation to treat decision-making as play with real tools, not as luggage you cannot wait to drop.
Phase notes: Texture pass only. Payload from Phase2 - Freeze. Style bar: 02 - Draft Article - Superordinate Terms. Pipeline: CONSTITUTION - Publishable Asset Pipeline. Index: 00 - Downloads Batch Map Index.