Description
First Principles reasoning: assumption cascade, challenge matrix, inverted solution, boundary test.
Most problems are solved by analogy—we apply a solution that worked for a similar problem. First Principles reasoning discards analogy and rebuilds from irreducible truths. This is harder, slower, and produces solutions that survive when assumptions break. STEP 1 — IDENTIFY THE CLAIM: State the conventional wisdom as a single sentence. 'We need a mobile app to reach Gen Z users.' Capture the specific claim, not the general goal. STEP 2 — ASSUMPTION CASCADE: List every assumption the claim depends on, in order of fundamentality (most basic first): 1. Gen Z users prefer mobile apps over mobile web. 2. Our target demographic is Gen Z. 3. Gen Z would discover our app. 4. They would install it. 5. They would open it after install. 6. They would complete the onboarding. 7. The mobile app experience is better than our web experience. STEP 3 — CHALLENGE EACH ASSUMPTION: For each assumption, ask: 'Is this universally true? Under what conditions would it be false? What evidence would disprove it?' - Assumption 1: Gen Z prefers apps for high-frequency utilities (Snapchat, TikTok) but resists installing apps for low-frequency tasks. Our product is used 2-3×/month. Mobile web sees 60% lower abandonment than forcing app install. - Assumption 2: Is Gen Z actually our best demographic? Data shows 35-44 age group has 3× higher LTV. STEP 4 — INVERTED SOLUTION: Based on the surviving assumptions, what solution would you build that contradicts the original claim? 'Do not build a mobile app. Build a progressive web app (PWA) that installs via browser prompt, reaches all demographics, and costs 40% less to maintain.' STEP 5 — BOUNDARY TEST: At what scale does your inverted solution break? 'PWA works until we need push notifications with >80% delivery rate. At 500K MAU, invest in native.' OUTPUT: Original claim, assumption cascade, challenge matrix, inverted solution, boundary test.
No comments yet. Be the first!