── ── Strategy
Change and Constants Framework
Every strategy contains elements that must change and elements that must not. The failure mode is misclassification: treating habits as principles, or principles as outdated conventions. The framework sorts on two axes: 变 (Must Change) and 不变 (Must Stay Constant) — they are complements, not opposites.
How it works
Gate rule: Both tests required for every element. "It feels like a core value" fails the gate.
Step 1 — List all major elements (strategic choices, operations, culture, values, relationships, resource allocation). Target 10–20. No pre-sorting.
Step 2 — Apply two tests to each element. - Test A (Irreversible damage): "Would changing this violate a bedrock value or cause irreversible damage?" YES → 不变 candidate. NO → 变 candidate. - Test B (Blind spot): "Would keeping this unchanged leave us blind to environmental shifts?" YES → 变 candidate. NO → 不变 candidate. Both YES = genuine tension → return to first principles. Both NO = stably 不变.
When to use it
- 'we keep debating whether to pivot or stay the course', 'I don't know what we should never change', 'is this signal or noise?', 'the market shifted — what do we hold onto?', 'we're paralyzed between adapting and staying true to who we are'
When not to use it
When the decision is routine and reversible, applying a formal method costs more than it returns.
Worked example
The U.S. Constitution's Design, 1787–Present
The framers of the U.S. Constitution faced an explicit design challenge: how to create a governing document that would endure over time while remaining capable of adaptation. Their solution is arguably the most consequential application of the 变/不变 framework in recorded history.
Install this skill (free, MIT)
npx skills add deciqAI/knowledge-skills