1. Explicit decision ownership
Without a named owner, decisions drift, stall, or hide inside committees. People guess who really decides; psychological safety erodes.
2. Separation of ideas from identity
If critique feels like personal attack, people self-censor. The organisation optimises for ego protection, not truth.
3. Evidence over authority
Rank and tenure replace reasoning. Junior signal disappears. Errors persist because power owns them.
4. Explicit assumptions with falsification plan
Without declared assumptions, monitors, and triggers, uncertainty is smuggled in as certainty. Revision becomes personal — politics, not mechanics. Assumptions belong on the record before dissent and bind.
5. Reversibility awareness
Without classification, every choice feels catastrophic or trivial. Fear and overanalysis both increase. Classify before debate closes so rigor matches stakes.
6. Right to dissent (before commitment)
Groupthink and unspoken risk produce predictable surprises. Disagreement must be an asset, not a career hazard — aimed at published assumptions and options.
7. Decision finality after debate
Without closure, debate never ends, execution fractures, and rationality gives way to exhaustion and politics. Finality closes debate — it does not grant immunity from evidence. Execute while monitors run; reopen only via trigger, contest, or supersession.
1. Explicit decision ownership Decision Making Principle 1 — full entry →
Why irreducible: Without a named owner, decisions drift, stall, or hide inside committees. People guess who really decides; psychological safety erodes.
Example: A tech lead owns the database choice after team debate — not “architecture guild consensus.”
Genesis: Single writer principle · named authority at L0 commit · authority weight in domain