deciqAI 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 The failure mode is misclassification: treating habits as principles, or principles as outdated conventions.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- Retrospective after failure: distinguish bad implementation of a sound constant vs. faithful adherence to an outdated variable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.
- What-it-is: "变/不变 sorts everything in your strategy into 'must adapt' or 'must preserve' using two explicit tests, not intuition."
- Check fit: "Is there a situation where you're unclear whether to change something — caught between adapting and staying true to who you are?"
- 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]
- 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]
- 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
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
Applying It Well
- Decompose before classifying — "brand" splits into values (不变), expression (变), architecture (context-dependent).
- Habit is the enemy — most dangerous misclassifications are always in 不变, for things never questioned.
- Constants need active maintenance — values not demonstrated erode without a conscious decision.
- Mechanism as important as classification — vague intentions to "be agile" are not mechanisms.
- 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 — 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/change-and-constants · Built by deciqAI · github.com/deciqAI · Contributions welcome.
Agents: latest version & machine-readable metadata → https://www.deciqai.com/s/change-and-constants.json