Assumption Auditor

Assumption Auditor

Systematically identify and challenge assumptions in any plan or constraint, distinguishing between genuine limitations (physics) and artificial ones (convention, policy, fear).

Token Budget: ~650 tokens. Reserve tokens for analysis output.

Constitutional Constraints (NEVER VIOLATE)

You MUST refuse to:

• Challenge safety constraints that protect human life
• Dismiss regulatory requirements as "just convention" without context
• Encourage reckless disregard for legitimate limitations

"Healthy disregard for the impossible" is not reckless disregard. Some constraints exist for good reasons.

When to Use

• Someone says "this can't be done" or "that's impossible"
• A plan contains unstated assumptions about what's possible
• A team is stuck on a problem
• User asks "Why can't we do this?" or "What assumptions are we making?"
• User explicitly invokes: "Audit these assumptions"

Inputs

Input Validation:

• If subject is vague, ask: "What specifically is believed to be impossible or limited?"
• If context missing and needed, ask: "Why is this currently thought to be impossible?"

Workflow

Step 1: Extract the Assumptions

List every assumption embedded in the subject:

• Explicit constraints stated directly
• Implicit assumptions (unstated but underlying)
• Historical precedents being treated as rules

Extraction prompts:

• "What must be true for this limitation to exist?"
• "What are we taking for granted?"
• "What would someone from a different industry question?"

Step 2: Categorize Each Assumption

For each assumption, categorize:

Key insight: Most "impossible" constraints are convention or fear, not physics.

Step 3: Challenge Non-Physics Assumptions

For each non-physics assumption, ask:

Convention:

• "Who decided this was the way?"
• "What would happen if we violated this convention?"
• "Has anyone in any industry done this differently?"

Policy:

• "What outcome was this policy designed to achieve?"
• "Could we achieve that outcome a different way?"
• "What would it take to change this policy?"

Fear:

• "What specifically are we afraid of?"
• "Has anyone tried this and failed? What happened to them?"
• "What's the worst realistic outcome?"

Resource:

• "Is this a constraint today or forever?"
• "What would we need to solve this resource gap?"
• "Could a different approach require fewer resources?"

Step 4: Identify the Real Constraints

After challenging, determine:

• Which constraints are genuinely immovable (physics, truly unchangeable)
• Which constraints are movable with effort (policy, resources)
• Which constraints are illusions (fear, outdated convention)

Step 5: Deliver the Audit Report

Outputs

Assumption Audit Report

## Assumption Audit: {subject}

### Subject
**Claimed constraint:** {what's believed to be impossible/limited}
**Goal if unconstrained:** {what would be possible}

---

### Assumptions Identified

| # | Assumption | Type | Challenge Status |
|---|------------|------|------------------|
| 1 | {assumption} | Physics/Convention/Policy/Fear/Resource | Real/Movable/Illusion |

---

### Detailed Analysis

#### Assumption 1: {assumption}
**Type:** {category}
**Challenge:** {question that challenges it}
**Finding:** {what we learned}
**Status:** REAL CONSTRAINT / MOVABLE / ILLUSION

{Repeat for each assumption}

---

### Summary

**Real constraints (respect these):**
- {list}

**Movable constraints (effort required):**
- {list with what would be needed to move them}

**Illusions (discard these):**
- {list}

---

### Reframed Possibility

**Original framing:** {what was believed impossible}
**Audited framing:** {what's actually possible given real constraints}

**The path forward:** {what this audit enables}

Error Handling

Constraints

• Do not use this analysis as the sole basis for critical decisions
• Do not apply this framework to situations outside its intended scope
• Acknowledge that analysis is based on available data, which may be incomplete
• Honor the complexity of real-world situations that resist simple categorization
• Present findings with appropriate confidence levels
• Recognize the limits of the methodology

Example

Input: "We can't ship this product internationally because logistics is too complicated."

Output:

Why this works:

This example demonstrates the key principles of the skill in action. The approach is effective because:

• It follows the systematic workflow outlined above
• It shows concrete application of the framework
• It produces actionable, specific outputs rather than vague generalizations
• The analysis is grounded in observable details
• The recommendations are prioritized and implementable

Alternative applications:

This same approach can be applied to:

• Different contexts within the same domain
• Related but distinct problem types
• Scaled up or down depending on scope
• Combined with complementary analytical frameworks

Assumption Audit: International Shipping Limitation

Subject

Claimed constraint: Cannot ship product internationally due to logistics complexity Goal if unconstrained: Serve customers worldwide, expand addressable market

Assumptions Identified

Detailed Analysis

Assumption 1: Requires specialized expertise

Type: Convention Challenge: How do thousands of small businesses ship internationally via Etsy, eBay, Amazon? Finding: Third-party logistics (3PL) providers and platform tools have commoditized international shipping expertise. Status: ILLUSION

Assumption 2: Customs paperwork is prohibitive

Type: Fear Challenge: What specifically is complex? Have we actually tried? Finding: Modern shipping platforms auto-generate customs documentation. Harmonized codes are standardized. Fear is based on imagined complexity. Status: ILLUSION

Assumption 3: Shipping costs are unviable

Type: Resource Challenge: What are actual costs? What would customers pay? Finding: Need data. International customers often accept higher shipping costs for unavailable products. Premium pricing may work. Status: MOVABLE (requires pricing research)

Assumption 4: Need local warehouses

Type: Convention Challenge: Do we? What do dropshippers and direct-to-consumer brands do? Finding: Ship-from-origin model works for many products. Local fulfillment is optimization, not requirement. Status: ILLUSION

Assumption 5: Regulations vary too much

Type: Policy Challenge: Which regulations specifically? Are there common starting markets? Finding: Start with US/EU/UK/Canada - harmonized regulations, shared language. Expand from proven playbook. Status: MOVABLE (phased approach)

Summary

Real constraints:

• None identified as truly immovable

Movable constraints:

• Shipping cost viability (requires pricing research)
• Regulatory complexity (solvable with phased market entry)

Illusions:

• Need for specialized expertise (3PLs exist)
• Customs complexity (modern tools handle this)
• Need for local warehouses (direct shipping works)

Reframed Possibility

Original framing: "We can't ship internationally because logistics is too complicated."

Audited framing: "International shipping is a solvable operational challenge. We can start with harmonized markets (US/EU/UK/Canada), use 3PL providers, and test premium pricing. No technical barriers exist."

The path forward: Run a 90-day pilot with one 3PL partner, five target countries, and premium international pricing. Validate the assumption with data, not fear.

Integration

This skill is part of the larry-page expert methodology. It works alongside:

• tenx-thinking: Assumption auditing is prerequisite to 10x reframing
• moonshot-evaluator: Audit assumptions before concluding "no enabling technology"
• toothbrush-test: Clear assumptions to accurately assess utility potential

Success Criteria

Assumption audit is complete when:

• All assumptions extracted and listed
• Each assumption categorized by type
• Non-physics assumptions challenged with specific questions
• Clear verdict for each: real/movable/illusion
• Reframed possibility articulated
• Path forward identified