deciqAI 10-10-10
Overview
Faced with a non-trivial decision, ask three questions: How will I feel in 10 minutes? In 10 months? In 10 years? The three horizons are spaced an order of magnitude apart to surface the systematic bias toward the immediate — hyperbolic discounting — that makes decisions under stress go wrong. Coined by Suzy Welch (2009); the 10-year horizon is operationally identical to Jeff Bezos's regret-minimization framework (1994).
Composes with regret-minimization, second-order-thinking, first-principles, and metacognition.
When to Use
- A personal life decision is being made under emotional pressure
- A career or professional choice has long-term consequences that current anxiety is obscuring
- A relationship decision (start, deepen, end) requires weighing what feels acute vs what will matter
- A high-stakes business call is being made by someone who would benefit from a forced retrospect
- An impulsive action is about to be taken that would feel embarrassing later
- A hard conversation is being deferred because it's uncomfortable now
- Someone says "10-10-10," "regret minimization," "what would future me say," "Suzy Welch," "Bezos framework," "long-term perspective"
Not when: the decision genuinely has no medium- or long-term consequences (which lunch to order); the 10-10-10 frame produces three identical answers (low-stakes — stop deliberating); urgent operational decisions where deliberation cost exceeds the framework's value; decisions someone else has made and you're being asked to ratify.
Coaching Novices (Adaptive Front Door)
- Engine mode: user has a concrete case → run The Process directly.
- Coach mode: user is unfamiliar or has no concrete case → 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.
- One-line what-it-is: imagine yourself in 10 minutes, 10 months, and 10 years — notice which version of you would regret which choice.
- Check fit against When to Use / When NOT to use.
- Elicit the specific decision.
[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]
- One question at a time: how will you feel in 10 minutes? 10 months? 10 years? Which horizon are you currently privileging?
[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]
- Close: name the specific action the neglected horizon recommends.
[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]
The Process
S1 — State it: Decision (specific) · Options · Time pressure · Emotional state going in.
S2 — 10 Minutes: How will I feel? What emotion is driving this answer?
S3 — 10 Months: How will I feel? What will have changed? What second-order effects begin?
S4 — 10 Years: Defining moment or trivial in retrospect? What does my 80-year-old self say?
S5 — Neglected horizon: Which horizon was I privileging? Which was I neglecting? What does the neglected one say?
S6 — Commit: Action · Timeline · Early signal I made the right call.
Output Template
Decision | Options A/B | Emotional state going in | 10 Minutes (feeling + emotion) | 10 Months (feeling + what unfolds) | 10 Years (feeling + defining/trivial) | Neglected horizon + what it says | Decision: action / timeline / early signal
→ Method in Action: Suzy Welch, 1990s; Jeff Bezos, 1994
Pack: 10-10-10 Patterns
| Decision type | 10-min dominates when | 10-year dominates when |
|---|---|---|
| Career change | Loss-aversion of current salary | Trajectory of capability + meaning |
| Relationship conflict | Anger / desire to "win" | Trust and partnership over time |
| Hard conversation | Discomfort of having it | Cost of letting issue compound |
| Health / fitness | Immediate convenience | Capability and longevity |
| Major purchase | Excitement of acquisition | Total cost of ownership |
| Saying yes to obligation | Politeness / social pressure | Time and energy reservoir |
Applying It Well
- The medium horizon (10 months) is often the most informative — don't skip it.
- If all three horizons return "fine," stop deliberating; the decision is genuinely low-stakes.
- The framework ends in action — state the decision, the timeline, and the early signal.
- If you genuinely can't imagine the 10-year view, gather more structural information before deciding.
→ Primary sources: references/sources.md
Common Rationalizations
[D] = designed upfront | [O] = observed in real use. [O] entries are more valuable.
| Fake move | Reality |
|---|---|
| [D] Apply 10-10-10, then ignore the 10-year answer | The most common failure. The 10-year horizon is what the framework is for. |
| [D] Treat 10-10-10 as if it produces an answer automatically | The framework produces information. Synthesis is still your judgment. |
| [D] Use 10-10-10 for trivial decisions | If three horizons return "fine," stop. This is a discipline against systematic bias, not a routine. |
| [D] Make up answers that conveniently align with what you wanted | Be honest. If you can't imagine the 10-year view, you may not understand the decision. |
| [D] Skip the medium horizon | The 10-month answer is often the most informative. Don't skip it because the other two are easier. |
| [D] Mistake "I can't tell" for an actual answer | If you can't tell what the 10-year horizon says, gather more information first. |
| [D] Use 10-10-10 to defer hard calls | The framework should end in commitment. Indefinite deferral means you were avoiding, not analyzing. |
| [D] Pretend 10-10-10 dissolves emotional difficulty | The framework clarifies which option is better. It does not make the better option emotionally easy. |
| → Add [O] entries here after each real use — paste the actual failure pattern | What went wrong and why |
Red Flags
- 10-10-10 was applied and the 10-year answer was politely ignored
- The 10-month horizon was skipped (only 10-min and 10-year considered)
- The framework was used to justify what you wanted to do anyway
- The decision was deferred indefinitely after "considering" the horizons
- The answer changes every time you apply the framework — suggesting you don't actually know your values
- All three horizons returned "fine" but you continue to deliberate
Verification
- The decision was stated specifically
- All three horizons were considered honestly
- The horizon you were privileging before was named
- The horizon you were neglecting was named
- The decision converged to specific action, timeline, and early signal
- You committed even though the better option is not the easier one
Part of deciqAI Knowledge Skills — 237 open-source thinking skills that make rigor executable for AI agents. The same skills power every deciqAI agent, which runs them autonomously to operate your company. See it run → https://www.deciqai.com/s/10-10-10 · Built by deciqAI · github.com/deciqAI · Contributions welcome.
Agents: latest version & machine-readable metadata → https://www.deciqai.com/s/10-10-10.json