Change and Constants Framework

SKILL.md

---
name: change-and-constants
description: "Activate when: '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'.
  Do NOT activate when: the decision is purely operational (which vendor, which tool) with no strategic identity implications; all elements clearly fall into one category and the team already has consensus."
---

# Change and Constants Framework

## Overview

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 The failure mode is misclassification: treating habits as principles, or principles as outdated conventions.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.

**Skill composition:** AFTER [first-principles] to strip convention; WITH [second-order-thinking] to check if "constants" are only temporarily stable; BEFORE [okr-goal-setting] — goals = 变; core values = 不变.

## When to Use

- Major environmental shift demands strategic response and the team is paralyzed on what to adapt vs. preserve
- Organizational identity is unclear: cannot distinguish "this is who we are" from "this is what we've always done"
- Leader/board asks: "What should we never compromise on?" or "Is this signal or noise?"
- Retrospective after failure: distinguish bad implementation of a sound constant vs. faithful adherence to an outdated variable

**When NOT to use:** purely operational decisions (vendor, tool) without strategic identity implications; genuine emergencies (use OODA instead); using the framework to avoid deciding by treating all elements as equivalent.

## Coaching Novices (Adaptive Front Door)

- **Engine mode:** concrete case → run The Process directly.
- **Coach mode:** unfamiliar user → guide step by step.

In Coach mode, respond one step at a time. Each [WAIT] is a hard stop — output only that step's question, then stop.

1. What-it-is: "变/不变 sorts everything in your strategy into 'must adapt' or 'must preserve' using two explicit tests, not intuition."
2. Check fit: "Is there a situation where you're unclear whether to change something — caught between adapting and staying true to who you are?"
3. Elicit their case: "What are you navigating? Which things feel like they might need to change, and which should never change?"
> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**
4. Run The Process step by step with their input — list elements first, then Test A, then Test B.
> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**
5. Close by naming which things they had been treating as constants that are actually habits.
> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**

## The Process

**Output artifact:** Change-Constants Map

**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.

**Step 3 — Sort with explicit WHY.** Record category, which test, and one sentence why. "Always done it this way" is not a valid why.

**Step 4 — Identify dangerous misclassifications.** Scan 不变 for habit-based entries. New-entrant test: would a new org call this a foundational principle or outdated convention? At least one element must move from 不变 to 变.

**Step 5 — Design adaptation mechanisms.** For each 变 element: specific change, timeline, decision owner, observable trigger signal.

**Stop-rule:** All-elements-in-one-category = framework not applied. Both lists must be populated.

### Output: Change-Constants Map
```
## Change-Constants Map — [Entity] — [Date]
### 不变 | Element | Test | Why it is a constant
### 变    | Element | Test | Why it must change | Mechanism | Trigger | Owner
### Dangerous Misclassifications: [elements moved from 不变 to 变 + reason]
### Tension Points: [elements failing both tests + first-principles resolution]
```

*→ Method in Action: [The U.S. Constitution's Design, 1787–Present](examples/us-constitution-design-1787-present.md)*
## Change-Constants Packs

*Domain packs extend the framework. Contribution surface — submit via the repo.*

- **Tech / platform shifts:** Revenue model = 变 (unit economics shift). Brand values = 不变; visual language = 变. Core architecture may be 不变 if it encodes hard-won learning.
- **Personal career:** Ethical principles = 不变 (Test A). Specific skills = 变 (Test B). Practice of continuous learning = 不变; what you learn = 变.
- **Org culture / rapid growth:** "Move fast" = startup-phase behavior = 变. Customer outcomes commitment = 不变. Specific rituals = 变; their purpose = 不变.

*→ Primary sources: [references/sources.md](references/sources.md)*

## Applying It Well

1. **Decompose before classifying** — "brand" splits into values (不变), expression (变), architecture (context-dependent).
2. **Habit is the enemy** — most dangerous misclassifications are always in 不变, for things never questioned.
3. **Constants need active maintenance** — values not demonstrated erode without a conscious decision.
4. **Mechanism as important as classification** — vague intentions to "be agile" are not mechanisms.
5. **Team artifact, not solo** — disagreements reveal absent shared understanding of identity.

## Common Rationalizations

**[D] = designed upfront | [O] = observed in real use. [O] entries are more valuable.**

| Fake move | Reality |
|---|---|
| [D] "Our [process/tool] is a core value, so it can't change." | Processes are expressions of values, not the values themselves. |
| [D] "Everything is changing, so we need to be 100% flexible." | No constants = no identity; cannot make credible commitments. |
| [D] "We've always done it this way, so it must be working." | Duration of practice is not evidence of correctness. |
| [D] "Our core competence is [X], so we can't change [X]." | Core competences must be dynamically renewed each technology cycle. |
| [D] "We identified our constants years ago — no need to revisit." | Constants are relative to an environment; old maps are dangerously outdated. |
| [D] "Our culture is special, so none of it can change." | Culture = values (不变) + practices (often 变). Conflating them treats habits as sacred. |
| [D] "This is too important to change, so it must be a constant." | Importance is not the classification criterion. |
| *→ Add [O] entries here after each real use — paste the actual failure pattern* | *What went wrong and why* |

## Red Flags

- 不变 has only stated values — no demonstrated behaviors; or every challenged element ends up in 不变
- 变 contains only peripheral items; foundational assumptions never examined
- Team cannot answer "what would we need to see to move this from 不变 to 变?"
- Map not revisited in 12+ months despite significant environmental change

## Verification

- [ ] All elements listed before sorting; both Test A and Test B applied to each
- [ ] Every element has a written "why" — habit-based reasoning flagged
- [ ] At least one element moved from 不变 to 变 after misclassification check
- [ ] Every 变 element has mechanism, trigger, and owner; both lists populated
- [ ] Tension points noted; review cadence set (next inflection or 12 months)

---
*Part of **deciqAI Knowledge Skills** — open-source thinking skills that make rigor executable for AI agents. Built by deciqAI · https://deciqai.com · Contributions welcome — see the template at the repo root.*