Tool 17 of 32 · about an hour
Stability Test
Does each proposed move make the next change easier or harder?
Fourth check in the Depth working session, on the moves that implement the fix to the stop line, plus anything else still on the table.
What it is for
To score each candidate move as making the next change to the area easier or harder, so a fix that borrows from the future is chosen with open eyes, never by default.
The failure it catches
A plan made entirely of moves that add patches, overrides, branches, special cases, coupling and ambiguity is not a plan. It is deferred collapse, still wearing the clothes of progress.
Why it works
One neutral question, after this change does the area become easier to change next time or harder, scores the move instead of the person. Harder can still be right. It should never be invisible.
How to run it
- Take the moves that implement the fix to the stop line, and any other fix still on the table.
- For each move, ask: does this move add rules, branches and exceptions, or remove them. After this move, is the next change to this area easier or harder.
- Score each candidate as net-stabilizing or net-destabilizing.
- If a reading starts sounding like blame, say the test reads moves, not people. Every one of these patches was a reasonable decision on its day.
How to read the result
Moves that add stability: simplify rules, reduce branching, remove exceptions, clarify ownership, align the model with business reality. Moves that remove it: add patches, overrides, branches, special cases, coupling, ambiguity. A plan made entirely of destabilizing moves is not a plan. A move that makes the next fix harder is borrowing again, which can still be the right call, but it should be chosen with open eyes and a price.
How to run it well
- Keep the test neutral. The moment your decision destabilized the system becomes blame, people hide problems and the test goes blind.
- Harder afterward can still be right. Write the price next to it so it is not the default.
Where it breaks
- Weaponising readings against individuals. The test reads moves, never people.
- Citing only the stability reading because it agrees with a feeling. All five depth checks run, in order.
What would prove it wrong
Net-destabilizing moves that repeatedly produce durable improvement would break the classification.
What we watch
Whether moves scored as making the next change harder do in fact make the next change harder, and whether all-destabilizing plans later collapse.
Ask yourself
- For each move that implements the fix, does it add rules, branches and exceptions, or remove them?
- After this move, is the next change to this area easier or harder?
- Is the current plan made entirely of moves that make the next change harder?
- If harder is still the right call, is that price written down, or is it happening by default?
Fed by: Convergence Test, Leverage Layer
Feeds: Room Bias Scan, Decision Contract