90-Day Mental Models Protocol: Build Your Cross-Disciplinary Thinking Toolkit

How this programme adapts

Once a week, the player runs a short check-in and reads the week you actually logged — not the week the plan assumed. Every check-in lands on one of the adjustments below. These are the engine's own rules, rendered word for word.

Consolidation week
Consistency in showing up matters more than any individual drill this week. Hold your current habits and do not add new frameworks until you have a more complete log.
Apply one model to a real decision
Fewer than two models applied this week suggests the tools are not yet reaching live decisions. This week's focus is a single applied drill on a real situation before adding new material.
Slow down and revisit one framework
Low clarity scores often signal that the most recently introduced framework needs more practice before the next one is added. This week returns to the framework that felt least solid.
Strong engagement: introduce the next framework
Multiple models applied with high clarity and consistent logging indicates the current tier is working well. This week introduces the next framework in the sequence.
On track
Your engagement is in a normal range. This week continues with the next scheduled framework and one applied drill.

Pattern insights are gated behind your own record: the first unlocks after 5 logged days, and every insight states the evidence it stands on. Milestone reviews at day 30, day 60, day 90 read your whole record and choose their coaching from it.

The 90-day programme map

Every day of the programme, in full — the same steps the interactive player walks you through. Expand a week to read its days.

Month 1 — Foundation · Days 1–30

Build your decision journal and master the two core reasoning tools: first-principles decomposition and structured inversion

Week 1Decomposition LabDays 1–7

Day 1 · Start Your Decision Journal 10 min

Reasoning clearly starts with a record. Before applying any framework, you need to know what decisions you are actually facing. Today you open a dedicated journal, physical or digital, that you will use throughout this protocol.

Open a dedicated journal and write down the three most significant decisions you face this week, one sentence each
For each decision, label it 'reversible' or 'fixed' based on how easily you could undo the choice

Day 2 · Break a Problem Apart 15 min

First-principles reasoning asks you to separate a problem from the assumptions that normally travel with it. Today you pick one of yesterday's decisions and strip it to its fundamental components, as if you knew nothing about how it is typically handled.

Choose one decision from your journal. Write its goal in one sentence, then list every assumption you are making about how to pursue that goal
Cross out any assumption that is 'how it is usually done' rather than logically necessary, then restate the goal without those assumptions

Day 3 · Name the Constraints 15 min

Every decision lives inside a set of real constraints and a set of imagined ones. Real constraints are verified facts; imagined constraints are assumptions you have not checked. Telling them apart changes which options seem available.

Return to yesterday's decision. List all the constraints you perceive, one per line
Mark each constraint R (real, verified) or I (imagined, assumed). Circle any I that you could test or remove with a phone call or quick search
Write a one-sentence restatement of the problem with only the R constraints present

Day 4 · Find a Structural Parallel 15 min

Analogical reasoning draws on deep structural similarity rather than surface appearance. You are looking for a problem from a different domain that shares the same underlying relationships and constraints, not the same topic. Surface resemblances are usually misleading; structural ones are generative.

Name one field outside your current problem's domain and write it in your journal
Describe in two sentences how a similar constraint or trade-off appears in that field
Note whether the parallel suggests an approach that your original domain has not considered

Day 5 · Map the Relationships 15 min

The structure of a decision is not only its components but how those components connect. A rough sketch that shows relationships between variables is often more useful than a complete verbal description, because the visual layout reveals loops and dependencies that prose can hide.

On paper or a blank screen, write three key variables in your Week 1 decision as three nodes
Draw arrows showing which variables influence which, then label each arrow with a single verb
Note whether any variable influences itself through a loop you had not previously noticed

Day 6 · Test the Frame 15 min

A frame is the implicit story you are telling about a problem. Changing the frame changes which solutions appear available. Today you restate your Week 1 problem in two different ways and notice how each version opens or closes options.

Write your problem as: 'How do I minimize X?' and list what solutions this frame suggests
Rewrite it as: 'How do I achieve Y?' and list what different solutions emerge
Write one sentence about which frame is closer to the real situation and why

Day 7 · Week 1 Review 10 min

Today you close the first week by reviewing what the decomposition process revealed. You are not grading yourself on outcomes, only on whether the tools changed how you saw the problem. That shift in perspective is the Week 1 outcome.

Review your journal from Days 1 to 6. Write one sentence about the most useful reframe or structural insight from this week
Identify one decision you approached differently because of the mapping or decomposition work

Week 2Analogy MappingDays 8–14

Day 8 · Lock the Decomposition Habit 10 min

This week you layer a second anchor onto your journal practice. Whenever a significant decision appears, your first written step is to decompose it before evaluating options. Today you install that trigger and test it on a real, low-stakes situation.

Before evaluating any significant decision, write its goal and a list of its real constraints on paper first, then consider options
Apply the decomposition habit to one decision you face today, even a small one, to test it in a low-stakes setting

Day 9 · Map a Real Analogy 15 min

Today you apply structure-mapping to a current challenge by searching for a solved version of your problem in another domain. The goal is not a clever comparison but a point-by-point match of relationships. Surface resemblances are not analogies; structural isomorphisms are.

Write your current challenge as a three-node relationship diagram in your journal
Name three different fields (engineering, ecology, sport, history, cooking) and check each for a structurally similar problem
Write one sentence about what the strongest analogy suggests that you had not previously considered

Day 10 · Historical Parallel 15 min

History provides a large library of structurally similar situations. Today you look for one historical case where someone navigated a trade-off structurally similar to the one you are currently facing. The aim is to borrow the mechanism of the solution, not copy the specific choice.

In your journal, write the core trade-off in your current challenge in a single sentence with no domain-specific language
Name one historical or well-documented public case where a similar trade-off was resolved and note the key choice made
Write whether the historical resolution is structurally transferable to your situation, or where the parallel breaks

Day 11 · Surface vs Structure 15 min

Two problems can look similar while having different underlying structures. Two problems can also look different while sharing the same logic. Distinguishing surface from structural similarity is the core skill of analogical reasoning. Today you practice that distinction using examples from your own experience.

Write one example from your experience where two situations looked similar but required opposite approaches
Write one example where two situations looked different but turned out to need the same approach
For your main Week 2 decision, write whether any apparent analogies you found are surface or structural, with a one-sentence reason

Day 12 · Transfer the Mechanism 15 min

When an analogy is structural, the mechanism that solved the parallel problem can often be transferred. Today you extract the underlying mechanism from your best analogy this week and test whether it applies to your current situation.

Return to the strongest analogy you found this week. Write the mechanism that made it work in one sentence: what changed, and why
Test whether that mechanism is available in your current problem. Write 'yes, because...' or 'no, because...'
If transferable, write one concrete step that applies the mechanism in your context

Day 13 · Analogy Limits 15 min

Every analogy breaks at some point. Knowing where the parallel ends is as important as knowing where it holds. Today you map the limits of your best analogy explicitly, so you do not carry faulty inferences forward into the decision.

Take your best analogy from this week and list its similarities with your current problem
Write a second list of where the analogy breaks or the structures diverge
Identify which of your planned actions depend on parts of the analogy that have already broken

Day 14 · Week 2 Review 10 min

This week you practiced applying structural analogies to real decisions. Today you consolidate what the mapping process revealed, not just as insight but as a habit of searching before concluding. Two weeks in, both the journal and the decomposition habit are in place.

Write one sentence about the best structural analogy you found this week and one thing it showed you
Note which decisions you approached differently after applying the mapping work

Week 3Inversion PracticeDays 15–21

Day 15 · Install the Inversion Check 10 min

Inversion means deliberately asking what would guarantee failure before asking what would guarantee success. This week you install it as a trigger that runs before every plan you finalize. It consistently surfaces risks that forward thinking misses because the mind treats an uncommitted plan as partially protected from scrutiny.

Before finalizing any plan or decision that requires more than 20 minutes to reverse, write down three ways it could fail first
Apply the inversion check to one plan or commitment you finalized in the past 48 hours and note what it reveals

Day 16 · Invert a Current Goal 15 min

Today you invert a goal you are actively pursuing. Instead of asking how to achieve it, you ask what would guarantee you fail at it. The answers often reveal actions you are already taking that work against your stated goal without your noticing.

Choose one active goal. Write the five most reliable ways to ensure you fail to achieve it
Check your current plan against this list. Mark any inversion item that matches something you are currently doing or failing to do
Write one plan adjustment based on what the inversion revealed

Day 17 · Introduction to the Pre-mortem 15 min

A pre-mortem applies prospective hindsight through the same structural-analogy lens you have been building all month: you construct a mental model of completed failure and reason backward through which structural assumptions broke. Where inversion asks 'what could go wrong?' in the abstract, the pre-mortem uses the structural decomposition of your plan to ask 'which specific load-bearing assumptions failed, and in what sequence?' That grounding in your plan's actual structure tends to produce more specific, actionable failure analysis than working from the plan as a whole.

Pick a project or plan you are currently working on. In your journal, write: 'It is now six months later. The project failed.' Write two paragraphs explaining why, as if writing the account after the fact
Underline every specific failure mechanism you named in that account

Day 18 · Run a Low-Stakes Pre-mortem 15 min

Today you run a full pre-mortem on a low-stakes plan so you can practice the thinking without the pressure of a high-stakes outcome. The goal is to build familiarity with the perspective shift, not to produce a definitive risk map on your first attempt.

Choose a low-stakes plan from this week: a meeting agenda, a small project, or a conversation you are planning
Write a one-page imagined account: the plan was completed last month and it went badly. What went wrong and why? Write it in past tense
Identify the single most specific failure mechanism you surfaced and note whether your current plan addresses it

Day 19 · Top Three Failure Modes 15 min

One of the most common errors in planning is listing too many failure modes and then acting on none of them. Today you practice narrowing your inversion output to the failure modes that are both most likely and most consequential, and then acting on those specifically.

Return to your pre-mortem list from Days 17 and 18. Rank each failure mode on a 1-3 scale for likelihood and a 1-3 scale for severity
Identify the two or three items with the highest combined score and circle them
For each circled failure mode, write one concrete mitigation step you can take before the plan begins

Day 20 · Inversion and Decomposition Combined 15 min

Today you practice pairing inversion with the decomposition work from Weeks 1 and 2. Decomposing a decision into its real components and then inverting each component separately tends to surface more specific failure modes than inverting the decision as a whole.

Choose a decision from your journal. List its three to five core components from your decomposition work
For each component, write one specific way that component fails, rather than the decision as a whole
Write in your journal: which component carries the highest failure risk under your current approach?

Day 21 · Week 3 Review 10 min

This week you practiced looking at your plans from the failure end. The inversion habit is now an anchor in your daily decision practice. Today you record what this week's work revealed and note how automatic the inversion trigger is becoming.

Write one sentence: what was the most useful failure mode you identified through inversion this week?
Note whether the inversion check is running before plans automatically or whether you still need to prompt yourself

Week 4Pre-mortem LabDays 22–30

Day 22 · Install the Analogy Search 10 min

You now have three anchors running: journal, decomposition, inversion. Today you add the fourth: when you face a problem that is new to you, your first move is to name a domain outside the immediate context where a structurally similar problem has been solved, before generating your own solution.

When you face a problem that is unfamiliar to you, name one domain outside the immediate context where a structurally similar problem has been solved, before generating your own solution
Apply this to one unfamiliar problem you face today and write the domain and structural parallel in your journal

Day 23 · Full Pre-mortem on a Medium Decision 20 min

Today you apply the full pre-mortem process to a decision with real stakes: a commitment you are planning, a project you are about to start, or a choice with a multi-week consequence. The more specific your imagined failure narrative, the more actionable the pre-mortem becomes.

Choose a medium-stakes decision or plan you are about to commit to
Write a full imagined account in your journal, one to two pages, as if the plan failed six months from now. Be specific about people, timing, and context
List every distinct failure mechanism your narrative named and highlight the ones that were not in your original risk thinking

Day 24 · Pre-mortem Debrief 15 min

The pre-mortem produces a failure narrative. The debrief converts that narrative into a short action list. Today you practice converting yesterday's failure list into concrete changes to your plan before you commit to it.

Take your pre-mortem list from Day 23. For each high-risk item, write a mitigation action in one sentence
Group your mitigations: changes to make before starting, signals to watch for during, and decisions to revisit at a fixed future point
Write a one-sentence summary of the most important change your pre-mortem produced

Day 25 · Invert the Assumptions 15 min

Your plan rests on a set of assumptions you have not fully examined. Today you apply inversion specifically to assumptions rather than to the plan as a whole. An assumption that survives inversion is more reliable; one that fails inversion is a risk worth managing.

List the five most important assumptions behind your current main project or commitment
For each assumption, write what you would observe if it turned out to be false
Circle the assumption whose falsity would most damage your current approach

Day 26 · Kill Chain Mapping 15 min

A kill chain is a sequence of events where each failure makes the next one more likely. Today you map the most plausible kill chain for a current plan: the sequence of linked failures that would combine to produce the worst outcome. Short chains of connected events often carry more practical risk than single large failures.

For a current plan, write the most likely two-to-three step failure chain: Event A leads to Event B leads to collapse
Identify which link in the chain is most brittle and most accessible to address
Write one action that breaks the chain at its most accessible point

Day 27 · Pre-mortem Timing 15 min

The timing of a pre-mortem matters. Running it before a plan exists gives you nothing to invert. Running it after commitment makes the insights harder to act on. Today you practice calibrating when to apply this tool for different decision types.

List three decisions you are currently tracking: one reversible, one partly reversible, one largely irreversible
For each, note the point at which a pre-mortem would be most actionable: before forming the plan, after drafting but before commitment, or as a debrief
Run a brief inversion check on the irreversible decision and note what it surfaces

Day 28 · Personal Risk Inventory 15 min

Every decision-maker has characteristic failure patterns, the types of mistakes they repeat across different domains. Today you look backward to map your own pattern. Knowing your failure modes lets you design checks against them in future plans.

In your journal, write the two or three most common types of mistakes you have made in decisions over the past two years
Label each pattern by its mechanism, for example: overconfidence in timelines, failing to check assumptions, or underweighting external feedback
Note which of your current active decisions is most exposed to the failure patterns you identified

Day 29 · Inversion and Decomposition: Second Pass 15 min

Today you revisit the combined drill from Day 20 with more material behind you. You now have a fuller set of tools and a clearer sense of your own risk patterns. Applying the paired approach to a new decision lets you measure how much the practice has built since the first attempt.

Choose a different decision from Days 22 to 28. Decompose it into its three to five core components
Invert each component separately: how does this specific component fail?
Compare the component-level failure list to what a simple plan-level inversion would have produced and note any failure modes the component approach surfaced that the simple approach would have missed

Day 30 · Month 1 Milestone 15 min

Thirty days in, you have built four habits. Today is the right moment to distinguish two categories they fall into. Anchor habits run unconditionally: the decision journal runs every day, and the inversion check runs before every plan that takes more than twenty minutes to reverse. Trigger-based tools run when the situation calls for them: decomposition and analogy search are most valuable on genuinely novel or messy problems, not every decision. Treating all four as equally obligatory overloads the stack; reaching for decomposition and analogy search deliberately, when the problem calls for them, makes each one more useful. Month 3 will add a third anchor habit. The measure for today's reflection is not whether each tool is perfect but whether knowing when to reach for each one is becoming clearer.

Review your journal from the past 30 days and write three entries that represent the clearest thinking you did this month
Write two or three sentences on which of the four habits is now running most automatically and which still needs deliberate prompting

Month 2 — Optimisation · Days 31–60

Develop second-order awareness and systems intuition through feedback-loop mapping and complex-problem analysis

Week 5Feedback LoopsDays 31–37

Day 31 · Install the Second-Order Habit 10 min

This week opens the systems and feedback phase. Before installing the next habit, name one real ongoing situation — a team dynamic, a project, or a personal goal — that you will carry as the continuous case study through Weeks 5 to 8; having a live case anchors the loop-diagram and leverage-point work in genuine insight rather than abstract exercises. Second-order effects are the consequences of consequences. They are consistently under-predicted because the mind tends to stop at the first-order result of an action. Today you also install a trigger: after noting any significant action or decision in your journal, you write its most likely second-order effect before moving on.

Name one real situation in your life — a team dynamic, a project, or a personal goal — that you will use as the continuous case study for all systems mapping in Weeks 5 through 8. Write it at the top of this week's journal pages
After recording any significant action or decision in your journal, write the most likely second-order consequence of that action before moving on
Apply this today: for a decision from the past 24 hours, write its first-order effect (the intended result) and then its most likely second-order effect (the consequence of that result)

Day 32 · Introduction to Feedback Loops 15 min

Feedback is what happens when the output of a process loops back to influence its own input. Reinforcing loops amplify change in one direction; balancing loops resist change and work toward a stable level. Most problems you face exist inside a mixture of both. Today you start to see loops rather than linear chains.

In your journal, describe a recent situation where an action you took created a new condition that then changed your options going forward
Draw the simplest loop diagram of that situation: your action, the result, how the result fed back to your conditions, and your next action
Label the loop: did it amplify the original change or resist it and push back toward a prior state?

Day 33 · Reinforcing vs Balancing 15 min

Reinforcing loops create momentum, compounding good or bad outcomes over time. Balancing loops push toward targets and create the experience of being stuck or of working against an invisible resistance. Recognizing which type you are inside changes what interventions make sense.

Name one reinforcing loop you are currently in: something where the results of your effort compound back into making more effort possible
Name one balancing loop you are experiencing: something where every push forward generates a push back toward a fixed level
For each, write one sentence about what the loop structure implies for how long your current approach is likely to work

Day 34 · Map a Loop in Your Work 15 min

Today you apply loop mapping to a live situation you are navigating. The goal is not a complete systems diagram but a minimum useful model: just enough structure to see an option that was invisible in the linear view.

Choose an active challenge at work, in a relationship, or in a project. Write two or three key variables as nodes on paper
Draw arrows between them and mark each as reinforcing (+) or balancing (-)
Write: what does this loop structure suggest about the likely trajectory of this situation over the next month if nothing changes?

Day 35 · Recognizing Delays 15 min

Delays in feedback loops produce some of the most consistent decision errors. When there is a gap between action and consequence, people tend to either overshoot their target or stop acting before the effect of their previous action has arrived. Today you practice identifying delays in your current loops.

For the loop you mapped yesterday, write how long each feedback link takes to show up: hours, days, weeks, or months
Identify the longest delay in the loop and write what behavior that delay is likely to produce if you do not account for it
Write one concrete way you will avoid overshoot or under-response given that delay

Day 36 · Unintended Consequences Audit 15 min

Most policy resistance and organizational frustration comes not from bad intentions but from actions that trigger second and third-order effects through feedback loops that were not modeled. Today you audit a past decision for its unintended consequences, including ones you may still be navigating.

Choose a decision you made in the past three to six months. Write its intended first-order effect
Write every effect you actually observed that you did not explicitly plan for, large or small
Trace which of those unintended effects came from a feedback loop you did not account for in your original thinking

Day 37 · Week 5 Review 10 min

This week you started mapping the feedback structures in your decisions rather than treating them as isolated cause-and-effect chains. The second-order habit is running. Today you close the week by noting what the loop view changed about how you see an ongoing situation.

Write one sentence: what did seeing a feedback loop rather than a linear chain change about how you understand a situation you faced this week?
Note whether the second-order habit is running automatically or still needs a prompt before you record it

Week 6Second-Order MapsDays 38–44

Day 38 · Install the Weekly Feedback Trace 10 min

Feedback loops reveal themselves gradually. The weekly trace is a short review: once per week, you take one decision or action from the past seven days and follow its consequences one link further than you tracked at the time. This builds a running record of how your decisions ripple forward.

Once per week, review one past decision or action and write the next link in its consequence chain, one level further than you tracked at the time
Run the first trace now: pick a decision from Week 5 and write the next-level consequence you can now observe

Day 39 · Second-Order Mapping in Depth 20 min

Today you build a fuller second-order map for a current challenge. The process: write the action, trace its first-order effect, then trace the effect of that effect, then look for a third-order effect. At each level, also check for a feedback link back to the original situation.

Choose an active challenge or project. Map it in a vertical chain on paper: action, first-order effect, second-order effect, third-order effect
For each level, ask: does this effect loop back to change my original conditions? Mark any yes answers with an arrow back to the top
Write: which level of consequence was most surprising, and why?

Day 40 · Third-Order Effects 15 min

Third-order effects are rarely visible at the moment of decision, but they are often where the real long-run cost or benefit of a decision lives. Today you practice extending your consequence trace to the third order on a real, past situation.

Take a significant decision you made in the past month. Trace its consequence chain to the third level: the effect of the effect of the effect
Write whether the third-order effect is positive, negative, or neutral relative to your original goal
Note what you would have done differently had you traced to the third level before the decision

Day 41 · Policy Resistance 15 min

Policy resistance is the tendency for systems to maintain their current state against interventions. It arises from balancing loops that push back on any change. Recognizing it stops you from pushing harder on an approach that is not working and redirects you toward the loop structure itself.

Identify one area of work or life where your efforts to change something have repeatedly been met with resistance or decay back to the original state
Write the balancing loop that produces this resistance: what target is the system maintaining, and what mechanism pulls it back?
Name one intervention that operates on the balancing loop itself rather than trying to overcome it by force

Day 42 · Find a Leverage Point 15 min

A leverage point is a place in a system where a small change produces a large effect. High leverage is often found in places that are not the most obvious focus of the problem. Today you look for leverage rather than trying to push harder on the most visible variable.

Return to a persistent problem you mapped this week. Write the five most obvious interventions someone would try first
For each intervention, estimate whether it addresses the loop's feedback structure or just adds force to an existing effort
Write one higher-leverage intervention that addresses the loop structure directly, even if it is less intuitive than the obvious approaches

Day 43 · Intended vs Actual Effects 15 min

The gap between intended and actual effects is data about the system you are operating in. Today you compare a past decision's planned effects with what actually happened and trace the gap back to a feedback loop or second-order effect you did not model at the time.

Choose a project or initiative from the past six months with a clear intended outcome. Write that intended outcome
Write the actual outcome and list the three largest differences between what you planned and what happened
For the largest gap, trace it back: which feedback loop or second-order effect produced the divergence?

Day 44 · Week 6 Review 10 min

This week you extended consequence mapping to three levels and started identifying leverage points in active problems. The weekly feedback trace is running. Today you record what shifted in how you see a live situation.

Write one example from this week where second-order or third-order mapping changed your intended action
Note one situation where you identified a leverage point that was not the most obvious target

Week 7Complex SystemsDays 45–51

Day 45 · Install Probability Framing 10 min

Verbal predictions, words like 'likely', 'probably', and 'might', carry widely different meanings from person to person and day to day. Probability framing replaces verbal labels with numerical ranges, which forces more precise thinking and makes your predictions reviewable later.

Whenever you make a prediction or state an expectation, express it as a numerical range rather than a verbal label such as 'likely' or 'probably', and record it in your journal
Convert three predictions you have made this week from verbal to numerical form and note whether the conversion forced you to think more carefully about the evidence

Day 46 · Complex Systems Basics 15 min

A complex system has many interacting parts, and those interactions produce emergent behavior that cannot be predicted from any individual part alone. Most of the systems you work inside, organizations, markets, and long-term relationships, have this property. Today you start identifying how the problems you face differ from simple cause-and-effect puzzles.

Write a description of the most complex system you currently operate inside. Name its key agents, their interactions, and one emergent behavior that nobody designed
Describe one decision you made recently where the system behaved differently than a simple model would have predicted

Day 47 · Emergence and Non-linearity 15 min

Emergent behavior is produced by the interactions in a system, not by any single part. Non-linearity means that small changes in initial conditions can produce large or unexpected outcomes. Recognizing these properties changes what you expect when you intervene.

Name one behavior in a system you work inside that is emergent: a property of the group or system that none of its parts would produce alone
Write one example from your experience where a small change produced a much larger outcome than you expected, in either direction
Write one rule of thumb that this non-linearity implies for how you approach interventions in that system

Day 48 · Decompose a Complex Problem 15 min

First-principles decomposition from Month 1 works well on well-defined problems. Complex problems require a modified approach: you decompose the interaction patterns as well as the components, because in complex systems the interactions carry as much information as the parts themselves.

Choose one current problem that feels complex and messy. List its main components, then list its main interaction patterns separately
Write whether the problem's difficulty lives primarily in the components or primarily in how they interact
Identify the two most important interaction patterns to understand before deciding on an approach

Day 49 · Tipping Points 15 min

Many complex systems have thresholds where the system shifts from one state to another. Whether you are near a tipping point changes the urgency and nature of appropriate action. Today you look for thresholds in the systems you navigate and identify the signals that would indicate you are approaching them.

Name one system you work inside that has a threshold: a point past which the system's behavior changes in a significant way
Write what indicators would signal that you are approaching or have passed that threshold
Note whether your current decisions bring you closer to or further from that threshold, and whether that direction is intentional

Day 50 · Resilience and Efficiency 15 min

Complex systems face a trade-off between efficiency and resilience. Highly efficient systems strip out redundancy, making them fragile to unexpected shocks. Resilient systems carry spare capacity, which costs efficiency. Knowing where this trade-off sits in your current situation matters for how you plan.

Write one area of your work or project where you have optimized for efficiency. Identify the redundancy you removed to achieve it
Write the scenario in which that removed redundancy would become costly to not have
Decide: is the current balance appropriate to the uncertainty level you face, or does it need adjustment? Write your conclusion

Day 51 · Week 7 Review 10 min

This week you moved from feedback loops to the broader territory of complex systems: emergence, non-linearity, tipping points, and the resilience-efficiency trade-off. These are not separate concepts but connected views of the same reality. Today you record which view was most useful for your current situation.

Write one example from this week where thinking about your problem as a complex system changed your approach compared to the linear cause-and-effect view
Note whether your probability framing habit is now running when you make predictions, or whether you are still making verbal predictions without a number

Week 8Systems IntegrationDays 52–60

Day 52 · Install the Stuck-Problem Sketch 10 min

When a problem feels stuck or tangled, drawing a simple causal map is faster than more analysis. The act of mapping forces you to decide which variables are central, and that choice surfaces the part of the problem you most need to address. Today you install that trigger.

When a problem feels stuck or unclear, sketch a simple causal map of three to five key variables with arrows before doing any further analysis
Apply this to one problem you face today that feels stuck. Draw the map and note what it clarifies

Day 53 · Combine Feedback and Complexity 15 min

Feedback loops are the mechanism inside complex systems. Seeing both together gives you a richer model: the complex system view shows you the agents and their interactions; the feedback loop view shows you the dynamics those interactions produce. Today you practice holding both views at once.

Choose a system you mapped earlier in Month 2. Identify two feedback loops within it, one reinforcing and one balancing
Write how the two loops interact: do they compete, amplify each other, or operate on different time scales?
Note what this interaction implies for the system's likely behavior over a six-month horizon

Day 54 · Map a Five-Variable Problem 20 min

Today you build the most complete causal map you have made so far: five variables, their connections, and their loop types. The additional complexity makes the map harder to read but also more faithful to the situation it represents.

Choose a current challenge involving multiple people or a multi-stage process. Write five key variables as nodes
Draw all the direct causal links you can identify and mark each as reinforcing (+) or balancing (-)
Write one observation about the overall structure: is it dominated by amplifying loops, balancing loops, or a mix?

Day 55 · Leverage Revisited 15 min

Now that you have both feedback-loop thinking and complex-systems thinking available, you can look for leverage more systematically. In a complex system, leverage is often found in the information that drives a loop rather than in the physical components of the system.

Return to a leverage-point problem from Week 6. Add any complex-systems insight you now have: are there emergent behaviors or threshold dynamics that affect where leverage lies?
Restate the highest-leverage intervention with this additional information and note whether it changes your answer
Write one sentence: has the combined view raised or lowered your confidence in your original leverage estimate?

Day 56 · Time Horizon Expansion 15 min

Most decisions default to the near term because immediate feedback is clearest. Systems thinking extends the time horizon by forcing you to trace consequences over months and years. Today you deliberately expand your time horizon on a current decision and see whether the view changes the choice.

Choose a decision you are making this week. Write its likely state at 1 month, 6 months, and 2 years forward
Note which time horizon makes the decision look most attractive and which makes it look least attractive
Write whether your original plan was implicitly optimized for the wrong time horizon

Day 57 · Systems Thinking in a Team 15 min

Teams and organizations are complex adaptive systems with their own emergent norms, feedback loops, and thresholds. Applying systems thinking to your work environment surfaces dynamics that are invisible when you focus only on individual actors or tasks.

Describe one feedback loop that operates in your team or organization: a mechanism where a behavior pattern feeds back to reinforce or constrain itself
Write whether this loop is currently amplifying something useful, or maintaining something that is no longer working
Write one small intervention that would modify the loop rather than push against it

Day 58 · Causal vs Correlational Thinking 15 min

Two variables that move together are correlated, but correlation does not establish which causes which, whether both are caused by a third variable, or whether the relationship holds over time. Systems maps make it easier to spot spurious correlations by tracing mechanism rather than pattern.

Write one correlation you have observed in your work or life that you have been treating as a causal link
Draw the simplest possible causal map that explains that correlation without requiring direct causation between the two variables
Note what this alternative map implies for actions you have been taking based on the assumed causal link

Day 59 · Month 2 Retrospective 15 min

Tomorrow marks the Month 2 milestone. Today you look back across six weeks of systems and feedback work. The tools from Month 2 sit alongside the tools from Month 1; they apply in different conditions, and the skill is knowing which to reach for.

Write two examples from Month 2 where feedback-loop thinking changed how you acted, and one situation where it did not add much clarity
Note which of the habits from Months 1 and 2 is now most automatic and which still needs a deliberate prompt

Day 60 · Month 2 Milestone 15 min

Sixty days in, you have built a second tier of reasoning tools: second-order mapping, feedback loop identification, complex-systems awareness, and a probability framing trigger. Today is not for new content but for recording where you stand before the Mastery phase begins.

In your journal, name one significant decision from Month 2 that you approached more carefully because of the systems tools, and describe what the tools added
Write two sentences about the reasoning habit you most want to sharpen in Month 3

Month 3 — Mastery · Days 61–90

Integrate calibrated probabilistic thinking into a complete, self-selected reasoning toolkit

Week 9CalibrationDays 61–67

Day 61 · Install the Calibration Review 10 min

Calibration is the degree to which your stated confidence matches the actual frequency of your correct predictions. The only way to build calibration is to make predictions explicit, then check them. Today you install a weekly habit of reviewing what you predicted and what actually happened.

Once per week, review three to five explicit predictions you made previously and note whether each was correct, partly correct, or wrong, then assess whether your confidence level matched your accuracy rate
Run the first calibration review now using any predictions you recorded in your journal over the past four weeks

Day 62 · Introduction to Calibration 15 min

A well-calibrated forecaster is correct roughly as often as their stated confidence implies. Overconfidence means being right less often than confidence implied; underconfidence means being right more often. Both produce systematic errors in planning, and both are correctable through the same mechanism: making predictions explicit and then reviewing accuracy against confidence over time.

Look back at five predictions you made in the past month that have now resolved. For each, write your original confidence level as a percentage if possible, and whether you were right
Count: were you overconfident (less accurate than confidence implied), underconfident, or approximately calibrated?
Write one sentence about your observed tendency

Day 63 · Overconfidence Inventory 15 min

Overconfidence is a common pattern in how people estimate what they know: stated confidence in beliefs tends to exceed the actual rate at which those beliefs are correct. This is not a personal flaw but a default tendency worth calibrating for. Today you map your specific overconfidence pattern in a domain you know well.

Take a domain where you make decisions regularly. Write five statements about that domain that you believe to be true with very high confidence
For each statement, rate your confidence as a numerical estimate, then check at least two of them against a reliable external source
Note whether your very high confidence was matched by accuracy, or whether you were more confident than the evidence supported

Day 64 · Base Rates 15 min

A base rate is the historical frequency with which a class of event occurs. Predictions that anchor on the specific details of a case while ignoring the base rate for that class of situation tend to be more optimistic than the distribution of outcomes warrants. Today you practice anchoring on the base rate first.

Choose a prediction you are currently holding: a project timeline, a negotiation outcome, or a plan's success. Write your current confidence
Look up or estimate the base rate: what fraction of similar plans, projects, or negotiations achieve the outcome you are predicting?
Revise your confidence in light of the base rate and write whether and how your estimate changed

Day 65 · Reference Class Forecasting 15 min

Reference class forecasting is the practice of grounding predictions in the distribution of past outcomes for similar cases before adjusting for the specifics of your case. It is the structured application of base-rate thinking to planning problems, and it tends to produce more accurate timelines and outcome estimates than inside-view reasoning alone.

Choose a plan you are about to start with a defined timeline or target. Name the reference class: what category of plan does this most resemble?
Find or estimate the distribution of outcomes for that reference class: what does the typical case look like, and what does the range look like?
Write a prediction for your plan that starts from the reference class distribution and then adjusts for the three most important ways your case differs

Day 66 · Numerical vs Verbal Probability 15 min

People use verbal probability labels inconsistently: 'probable' means different percentages to different people and in different contexts. Converting verbal labels to numbers forces precision and makes disagreements visible. Today you translate a set of verbal predictions and build a personal probability vocabulary.

Write down five verbal probability statements you have heard or made this week, for example: 'it is unlikely', 'there is a good chance', 'this will probably...'
Convert each to a numerical range and note whether the number is higher or lower than you expected from the verbal label
Write one guideline for your own use that standardizes the verbal labels you use most often to specific numerical ranges

Day 67 · Week 9 Review 10 min

This week you established calibration as a practice rather than a concept. The weekly calibration review is running; you have identified your overconfidence patterns; and you have practiced base-rate anchoring. Today you record where your calibration work currently stands and which domain most needs attention.

Write your current assessment of your calibration: in what domains are you most overconfident, and in which are you best calibrated?
Identify one upcoming decision where applying base-rate anchoring before the decision would be most valuable

Week 10Forecasting PracticeDays 68–74

Day 68 · Upgrade the Pre-mortem Habit 10 min

You have been running the inversion check since Week 3. Today you formalize it as a full pre-mortem habit with a specific trigger: any commitment that takes more than one hour to reverse gets a five-minute prospective failure review before you finalize it. This is a quality check built into the commitment process, not added friction.

Before finalizing any commitment that would take more than one hour to reverse, spend five minutes imagining it has already failed and write the two most specific failure reasons before proceeding
Apply the upgraded pre-mortem to a commitment you are about to finalize today or this week

Day 69 · Structured Forecasting Drill 15 min

Calibration in this protocol functions as a meta-skill for trusting your other frameworks: a structured probability estimate reveals how much confidence the inside view of your current model deserves. Rather than building forecasting skills from scratch, today you use the probability process as a framework-trust check — asking not only 'what will happen?' but 'how much should I update my current model given the base rate for this class of situation?' Run the check on a real prediction your current reasoning framework is generating, and record where the model's view and the reference class diverge.

Choose a real prediction you are currently holding about an event in the next four to eight weeks. Write the question precisely: 'What is the probability that X occurs by date Y?'
Apply the structured process as a framework-trust check: identify the reference class, note how far your current model's prediction sits from that base rate, then write a probability range that accounts for both the reference class and the case-specific adjustments
Record the prediction with today's date in your journal so you can review it when the event resolves

Day 70 · Inside vs Outside View 15 min

The inside view is the detailed, case-specific reasoning that comes naturally when you are close to a problem. The outside view is the reference class. The inside view is richer but tends to produce overconfidence. Blending both views, anchored on the outside first and then adjusted inward, generally produces more accurate predictions than either view alone.

Choose a plan or project you are currently executing. Write your inside-view prediction: based on your specific knowledge, what do you expect to happen?
Write your outside-view prediction: based on base rates and the reference class, what would you predict before knowing anything specific about this case?
Write your final prediction as a blend of the two views and note how far each view had to move to reach the blend

Day 71 · Updating on New Information 15 min

A calibrated forecaster updates their probability estimates when new evidence arrives. The update should be proportional to the evidence: small evidence warrants small updates; large evidence warrants large ones. Both failure to update and over-updating are systematic errors. Today you practice proportional updating.

Choose a prediction you made earlier in this protocol. Write the current evidence that has arrived since you made it
For each piece of evidence, rate it: does it substantially raise, slightly raise, slightly lower, or substantially lower your confidence?
Apply the update and write your revised probability estimate. Note whether you updated by more or less than felt natural

Day 72 · Calibration Against Past Forecasts 15 min

Running your calibration review against predictions made earlier in this protocol gives you a longer data series than any single week review. Today you run a fuller calibration session using all the explicit predictions you have recorded in your journal over the past nine weeks.

Collect all explicit predictions from your journal that have since resolved. List them with their original confidence level and their outcome
Calculate your hit rate at each confidence tier: group your predictions by stated confidence level and compute how often you were correct within each group
Write one finding about your calibration pattern and one adjustment you will make to your confidence levels going forward

Day 73 · Compound Probability 15 min

When a plan requires a sequence of steps that must all succeed, the probability of the overall plan is the product of each step's probability. People tend to overestimate the probability of plans with multiple required steps by attending only to the most uncertain step, not the full chain. Today you apply this calculation to a real plan.

Choose a plan with three or more required steps that are each independently uncertain. Estimate the probability of each step succeeding
Multiply the step probabilities to get the compound probability of the overall plan and compare it to your original intuitive estimate
Write whether the compound calculation changes your assessment of the plan's viability and how

Day 74 · Week 10 Review 10 min

This week you ran structured forecasting, practiced inside-outside view blending, and continued reviewing your calibration against actual outcomes. The pre-mortem is now a formal habit with a specific trigger. Today you close the week with a brief note on the most useful calibration insight.

Write one sentence about the most useful calibration insight from this week
Note one upcoming forecast or decision where you plan to apply the full structured forecasting process

Week 11Full ToolkitDays 75–81

Day 75 · Install the Model Selection Log 10 min

You now have five reasoning frameworks available: first-principles decomposition, structural analogy, inversion and pre-mortem, systems and feedback mapping, and calibrated probability framing. The model selection log is a brief note in your daily journal of which framework you applied to the day's most significant decision and why you selected it.

In your daily journal, note which reasoning framework you applied to the day's most significant decision and write one sentence on why you chose that framework rather than the others
Write your first model selection log entry now, for a decision you faced today

Day 76 · Multi-Model Analysis 20 min

Today you apply two or more frameworks to a single problem and compare what each view reveals. The goal is not to find which tool gives the right answer but to see which aspects of the problem each tool surfaces and which it misses. Model diversity is the point.

Choose a significant current challenge. Apply first-principles decomposition and write what it reveals
Apply inversion to the same challenge and write what that reveals that decomposition did not
Note: which view was more useful for this particular problem, and why?

Day 77 · When Models Conflict 15 min

Different reasoning frameworks sometimes produce conflicting recommendations. A first-principles analysis might say 'pursue this option' while a systems map shows a feedback loop that would undermine it. Model conflict is valuable information: it marks the genuine uncertainty in a decision rather than hiding it.

Apply both a feedback-loop map and a probability estimate to one current decision. Write what each recommends
If they conflict, write two sentences describing what the conflict reveals about the genuine uncertainty in the decision
Write how you would weight the two frameworks for this particular decision and why

Day 78 · When to Use Which Framework 20 min

Not every decision needs every tool. First-principles decomposition is most useful for novel problems or situations where conventional approaches are suspect. Inversion and pre-mortem are most useful at the planning stage. Systems mapping is most useful for persistent problems in dynamic environments. Calibration is most useful for predictions and probability-dependent decisions.

In your journal, write a one-page reference: which framework is most useful for which type of problem? Use examples from your own decisions over the past 11 weeks
Apply this selection logic to your three current most important decisions and note which framework each one calls for

Day 79 · Full Integration Drill 30 min

Today you run all five frameworks in sequence on a single significant current problem. The full-integration drill is demanding, but applying all five to one problem gives you the most complete view of its structure that these tools can produce.

Choose your most important current decision. Apply each framework in turn: (1) decomposition, (2) analogy search, (3) inversion, (4) feedback map, (5) probability estimate. Write a short paragraph output from each
Write a final two-sentence conclusion that synthesizes the five views into one action recommendation

Day 80 · Toolkit Gap Audit 15 min

Every set of reasoning tools has blind spots. Today you identify the gaps in your current toolkit: types of problems or decision contexts where none of your five frameworks provides a satisfying view. Knowing your toolkit's limits is as important as knowing its strengths.

Review your model selection log from the past four weeks. Write the types of decision where you most often found no tool particularly useful
Write the characteristics of those decisions: are they highly social, highly time-constrained, or more value-laden than analytical?
Note one additional reasoning approach you could investigate to address the most important gap

Day 81 · Week 11 Review 10 min

This week you practiced selecting among frameworks, running them in parallel, and identifying their limits. The model selection log is running. Today you write a brief status on the complete toolkit before the final week of the protocol.

Write one sentence for each of the five frameworks: how automatic is it now, and which problem types do you apply it to most readily?
Write one sentence about the habit you most want to strengthen in the final nine days

Week 12Mastery IntegrationDays 82–90

Day 82 · Full Toolkit in Live Context 20 min

The final week is integration time. You are not learning new frameworks but practicing applying the complete toolkit to the real decisions in front of you. Today you bring your full toolkit to your most consequential current situation.

Write the most consequential decision or challenge you face right now, in two sentences
Apply at minimum three of the five frameworks to it. Write one key insight from each framework you apply
Write the most important single action your analysis suggests

Day 83 · Peer Review a Decision 20 min

Applying your reasoning toolkit to another person's decision is a demanding exercise: you must reconstruct their context, avoid projecting your assumptions, and offer a framework-based view rather than an opinion. Today you practice this applied form of the toolkit.

Ask a colleague, friend, or partner to describe a significant decision they are wrestling with
Apply one framework to their decision with their permission: decomposition, inversion, or probability framing. Walk them through it
Reflect in your journal on what applying the tool to another person's context revealed that applying it to your own context does not

Day 84 · Post-mortem a Month 1 Decision 15 min

A post-mortem reviews a decision after the outcome is known. Today you run one on a significant decision from Month 1, now that enough time has passed to see how it unfolded. The goal is not self-judgment but calibration: what did you see clearly, and where did the tools miss something?

Choose a significant decision from Days 1 to 30. Write what you decided and the reasoning you used at the time
Write the actual outcome and how it diverged from what you expected
Identify which framework, applied at decision time, would most have improved the outcome, and why you did or did not use it then

Day 85 · Live Decision Under Uncertainty 15 min

Today you apply the full calibration process to a real, live decision where the outcome is genuinely uncertain. The calibration process is not only for retrospective review: it is a live decision tool for any high-uncertainty choice.

Identify a real decision you need to make today or this week where the outcome is genuinely uncertain
Run the full structured forecast: precise question, reference class, specific adjustments, and a probability range
Note the decision and your probability estimate in your journal for a future calibration review

Day 86 · Build Your Selection Criteria 15 min

Over 86 days you have built a body of evidence about which frameworks work best for which contexts in your own practice. Today you write a personal model selection guide, a one-page reference built from your actual experience rather than a generic prescription.

Review your model selection log from Weeks 11 and 12. Write three rules that best capture when you should reach for each framework
Note any pattern in decision types where combining two frameworks consistently produced better analysis than either alone
Write the selection guide in your journal as a short table or set of if-then rules you can return to after the protocol ends

Day 87 · Teach a Framework 20 min

Teaching a framework to someone else is one of the most demanding tests of your own understanding. You must explain the mechanism, offer an example, and help someone apply it in their context, without a script. Today you explain one framework to one person and note what the teaching reveals.

Choose the framework you use most fluently. Explain it to one person, a colleague, a partner, or a friend, in five minutes without any notes
Have them apply it to a real problem they face while you guide them. Write in your journal what questions they asked that you could not easily answer
Note any gaps in your own understanding that the teaching process revealed

Day 88 · Long-Horizon Planning 20 min

Long-horizon planning combines systems thinking, second-order mapping, and calibrated probability. Today you apply all three to one goal with a two-to-three year horizon and map the forces, feedback loops, and uncertainties that will shape the path.

Choose one important goal with a two-to-three year horizon. Write its intended outcome and the three most important variables that will determine whether you reach it
Map the feedback loops among those three variables and assign a rough probability to each of two scenarios: reaching the goal and not reaching it
Write the single most important leverage point between now and the goal, and one action you can take this week to address it

Day 89 · Final Review 15 min

Tomorrow is Day 90. Today you take stock of the whole 90 days without pressure to perform. You are not assessing productivity but how your reasoning looks from the inside, and where the remaining gaps are. A gap identified now is a direction for the work that continues after Day 90.

Review your journal entries from Days 1, 30, 60, and 85. Write two or three sentences on what changed in how you approached decisions across those four points
Write the two reasoning habits that are now most automatic for you
Write the two reasoning habits you still have to prompt yourself to apply

Day 90 · Summit: 90 Days 15 min

Today you reach the end of the 90-day protocol. You have built a reasoning toolkit grounded in cognitive science, decision research, and systems dynamics. The tools are not a substitute for good judgment, but they are a structured way to make your judgment more reliable and reviewable over time. Carry the journal and the habits forward.

Write a final journal entry: the three most significant decisions over the 90 days where applying a framework changed your reasoning, and the one habit you plan to keep running without interruption
Review your model selection log. Write the framework you applied most often and the one you found most useful for high-stakes irreversible decisions

The evidence

The frameworks this programme is built on — each anchored to peer-reviewed research, cited with its DOI and verified against the Crossref registry at build time. Where the evidence has honest limits, the framework says so.

Structural Analogy and First-Principles Reasoning

Gentner, Dedre · Cognitive Science · 1983

Structure-mapping theory holds that productive analogical reasoning depends on aligning deep relational structure rather than surface similarity. First-principles reasoning draws on the same capacity to strip a problem down to its structural skeleton before evaluating options, separating what is logically necessary from what is merely conventional.

DOI: 10.1207/s15516709cog0702_3

Gentner & Markman, 1997 — Structure mapping in analogy and similarity: relational versus attributional alignment doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.1.45

Prospective Hindsight and Pre-mortem

Mitchell et al. · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · 1989

Imagining a future event as already having occurred generates more specific and varied explanations of that event than forward projection alone. The pre-mortem applies this prospective hindsight mechanism to plans before commitment, surfacing failure modes that forward planning consistently misses because the mind treats uncommitted plans as partially protected from failure.

DOI: 10.1002/bdm.3960020103

Fischhoff, 1975 — Hindsight is not equal to foresight: outcome knowledge and judgment under uncertainty doi:10.1037/0096-1523.1.3.288

Systems Thinking and Feedback Dynamics

Sterman, John D. · System Dynamics Review · 2002

All models are simplifications, and the goal of systems thinking is not a perfect model but a useful one that reveals feedback dynamics otherwise invisible to linear cause-and-effect reasoning. Sterman identifies misperceptions of feedback structure as a primary driver of recurrent decision errors in dynamic environments, particularly where delays separate action from consequence.

DOI: 10.1002/sdr.261

Sterman, 1989 — Misperceptions of feedback in dynamic decision making doi:10.1016/0749-5978(89)90041-1

Complex Problem Solving

Dörner, Dietrich and Funke, Joachim · Frontiers in Psychology · 2017

Complex problems are distinguished by intransparency (opaque state), dynamics (the situation changes while you decide), and polytely (multiple, potentially conflicting goals). Standard analytical reasoning often fails under these conditions, requiring deliberate adaptation of problem-solving strategy to the specific structure of the problem rather than applying a fixed method.

DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01153

Funke, 2010 — Complex problem solving as a case for complex cognition doi:10.1007/s10339-009-0345-0

Calibration and Probabilistic Framing

Lichtenstein, Sarah and Fischhoff, Baruch · Organizational Behavior and Human Performance · 1980

Calibration is the correspondence between stated confidence and actual accuracy over a series of predictions. Research on calibration training shows that explicit feedback on prediction accuracy, combined with deliberate practice using numerical probability expressions, can reduce overconfidence bias in conditions where feedback is explicit and repeated over time. Structured weekly review of past predictions against outcomes is the core mechanism of that training.

DOI: 10.1016/0030-5073(80)90052-5

Tversky & Kahneman, 1974 — Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
Mellers et al., 2014 — Psychological strategies in a geopolitical forecasting tournament doi:10.1177/0956797614524255
Flyvbjerg, 2006 — Introduces reference class forecasting — grounding a prediction in the distribution of past outcomes for similar cases — the practice Day 65 teaches. doi:10.1177/875697280603700302

Safety & fit

This 90-day protocol is a structured, educational programme covering reasoning frameworks drawn from peer-reviewed cognitive science and decision research. It is not medical advice and is not a substitute for professional guidance. Every framework it references is linked to published peer-reviewed literature for educational context only.

Questions, answered

How much time does this take?

The Mental Models Protocol runs 90 days across 12 themed weeks. Each day asks for between 10 and 30 minutes of deliberate practice — the daily tasks are listed in the programme map on this page, so you can read the whole arc before you start.

How does the programme adapt to my week?

A weekly check-in reads the week you actually logged — not the week the plan assumed. Depending on the week you actually had, it lands on one of 5 adjustments: Consolidation week; Apply one model to a real decision; Slow down and revisit one framework; Strong engagement: introduce the next framework; On track. Milestone reviews at day 30, day 60, day 90 read your whole record so far.

Where is my progress stored?

Entirely in this browser. Your daily log, notes, and check-ins live in local storage on this device — no account, no server, and nothing you type is transmitted. You can export your full log as a CSV file or delete everything, at any time, from the My log tab.

Is this medical advice?

No. This is a structured, educational programme built on peer-reviewed research — it is not medical advice, therapy, or a substitute for professional guidance. The full disclaimer, and every framework the programme draws on with its DOI, is on this page.

What happens if I miss days?

The programme is built to absorb real weeks. The weekly check-in works from whatever you logged: a thin week adjusts the plan rather than failing you, and no adjustment ever deletes your record. The adaptation rules above describe exactly how each kind of week is handled.

Where does the evidence come from?

Every phase of the programme is grounded in 5 evidence frameworks — 12 peer-reviewed references in total, each cited with its DOI in the evidence section on this page and verified against the Crossref registry at build time. Where the evidence has honest limits, the framework says so.

Go deeper

Hand-picked companions to this programme from across the estate — the baseline tool, the research deep dives, and the terms worth two minutes each.

assessment The Mental Models Assessment A baseline reading before day 1 — retake it after the programme and compare.
deep-dive First Principles Thinking: The Neuroscience The research on reasoning from fundamentals rather than analogy.
glossary First Principles Thinking The core model, defined with worked examples.
glossary Pareto Principle (80/20 Rule) The resource-allocation model in this programme's toolkit.

Programme record

A living programme keeps a public record. Any future change to the daily tasks, the check-in rules, or their thresholds bumps the version and lands here.

v1.0 · July 2026Initial published programme: 90 daily practices across three phases, weekly adaptive check-ins, and milestone reviews at days 30, 60 and 90.