Document consequential schemas with falsification conditions — unfalsifiable schemas are dogma
For each schema driving consequential decisions, document: (1) the schema as a sentence, (2) when you adopted it, (3) supporting evidence, and (4) what would falsify it — if you cannot articulate falsification conditions, treat the schema as dogma requiring immediate audit.
Why This Is a Rule
A schema driving consequential decisions — "always prioritize speed over quality in early-stage products" or "senior hires need 10+ years of experience" — shapes outcomes repeatedly. If the schema is wrong, the consequences compound across every decision it influences. Yet most consequential schemas have never been documented, their origins are forgotten, their evidence has never been assessed, and their falsification conditions have never been specified.
The four-field documentation makes each schema accountable: Schema as a sentence (forces precision — vague schemas resist testing), Adoption date (reveals whether the schema is fresh or decades old and potentially outdated), Supporting evidence (reveals whether the schema rests on strong data, single experiences, or inherited wisdom), and Falsification conditions (the Popperian criterion — what would you need to see to abandon this schema?).
The falsification test is the critical field: a schema you cannot imagine falsifying is not a belief — it's a dogma. Dogmas are immune to evidence, which means they're immune to improvement. Schemas that drive consequential decisions must be falsifiable, or they should be flagged for immediate audit.
When This Fires
- During schema audits (Five-step schema audit: list rules, source origins, find successes/failures, rate confidence, check evidence) when evaluating high-stakes operating rules
- When a schema that drives major decisions has never been examined
- After a consequential decision produces a bad outcome
- When you notice yourself applying a schema reflexively without questioning it
Common Failure Mode
Writing vague falsification conditions: "I would update this if evidence suggested otherwise." That's not falsifiable — it's a general willingness to update without specifying what evidence would trigger the update. Specific: "I would abandon this schema if 3 of the next 5 early-stage products that prioritized speed over quality failed due to quality issues." Now you have a testable condition.
The Protocol
For each consequential schema: (1) Schema: state it as one clear sentence. (2) Adopted: when did you start operating on this? Source? (3) Evidence: what specifically supports it? Rate evidence quality (strong/moderate/weak). (4) Falsification: what would you need to observe to abandon or significantly revise it? If you cannot answer → flag as dogma and audit immediately. Dogma driving consequential decisions is one of the highest-risk conditions in personal epistemology.