It takes about five minutes. You describe what you observe, answer 6 to 10 questions and get hypotheses with their grade of support — plus a follow-up plan with a date on it.
Each step exists to prevent one specific error — and the error it prevents is written next to it.
Free text, in your own words, with no category form. The tool treats what you write as data, never as instruction — a request embedded in the text is ignored and handed back for rewording.
The tracking spreadsheets keep being sent by email every week, instead of being uploaded to the platform.
label: procurement team, South project
If the description interprets instead of describing, the tool does not diagnose: it asks a question and shows the difference with examples. Your original text stays there — nothing is discarded.
“my team resists change”
“there is no commitment”
“the spreadsheets keep going out by email”
“the material only appears once the stage is over”
Each question is chosen to distinguish two competing explanations — not to confirm the first one. The theory under test never appears in the question: asking “is this territoriality?” contaminates the answer.
Suppose there were free time and nobody chasing anyone. Under that condition, would the work be done the new way?
Each hypothesis comes with the signals that support it — and with the signals against it, shown with the same weight. The ruler has three notches; there is no percentage, because there is no measurement behind one.
+ Whoever delivers fast gets praised, with no look at how they delivered
+ Publishing generates questions and extra work for whoever published
− Doing it through the platform is no slower than through the old channel
Steps, effort, risk, a suggested indicator — and the contraindication, which is usually the most useful part. When the reading points to legitimate withholding or a matter of policy, the recommendation is do not intervene.
medium effort · low risk · incentive redesign
You write down what you expect to observe and set a date. At closing, a negative result lowers the support of the hypothesis that motivated the intervention — and it stops being recommended for that team.
This is where the tool stops being an oracle and becomes a record of what you have learned about your operation.
Aug 2026 · C9 · high
Publishing gives something back to whoever publishes
✕ no change
Sep 2026 · C9 · moderate
Recognise the process publicly
✓ improved
Reads the free-text description and structures it
Chooses the next question within the method
Writes the result and the report in plain language
What it does not do: decide the diagnosis. The rule for support belongs to the method, is auditable, and does not change from session to session.
Only you. No other manager reaches your session by any path — not even by direct link. Support access only exists with a log entry you can see, and that log cannot be erased.
There is no way to. The Culture team's panel only shows aggregates of five sessions or more and has no path back to the individual session — by design, not by an unchecked permission.
Because there is no measurement behind one. “C9 · 87%” would look more precise than “C9 · high” without being so. The three-notch ruler is honest about what the tool actually knows.
It does — they are hypotheses. That is why every session ends with an expected result written down and a date. The error is recorded and lowers the hypothesis next time. A tool that is never wrong is one that never tests itself.
No. The questions are about what you observe at work. The theory only appears in the result, with the mechanism's card in plain language — and always with its “how to tell it apart from”.
About five minutes per session. The real value shows up in the second cycle, when history starts to contradict or confirm earlier readings.