The Golden Rules Are Not Fixed
In the chapters so far, we have walked through how to use the golden rules (the 7+1 protocol: consulting all seven internal roles in parallel, running one external audit, and cycling through up to three rounds).
Round one surfaces rough edges. Rounds two and three harden the decision against edge cases. This flow works well for decisions that carry real weight.
At a certain point, though, we started to notice something felt off about that rhythm.
The Feeling of "Do We Really Need Three Full Rounds Again?"
It happened during a stretch when several decisions came together in a short period.
Each individual decision was not particularly significant. But as the work piled up, a question surfaced: "Do we really need a full three rounds for a situation like this?"
To be specific, the situation looked like this:
- We had handled several similar cases recently, and the decision context was nearly identical each time.
- The external auditor (Antigravity) had already reviewed the same type of issue in a recent cycle.
- The question itself was not exploratory (weighing a genuinely new choice) but executional (moving forward with something already decided).
We started to wonder whether running a full three rounds for every situation like this still served a purpose.
Why We Assumed the Protocol Was Fixed
When we looked back, the reason became clear.
In the early days of running this system, uncertainty about the design itself was high. We did not yet have a feel for what was appropriate, and running the full three rounds was how we kept quality up. That was the right call at the time.
The problem was that this design decision quietly hardened into a rule: "always run the full three rounds, no matter the situation."
Following the protocol had become the goal in itself. We kept running the system without stopping to ask whether the protocol actually fit the situation.
When a rule is cut off from the context that gave it meaning, it becomes a cost with no payoff. The form that was meant to protect the goal starts to slow down the goal instead. This can happen with any system.
The Nature of the Situation Determines the Right Approach
Here is what we came to understand.
The true purpose of the golden rules is to protect the quality of decisions. If that is the goal, then of course the right approach will vary by situation. The point is not to run three rounds -- it is to protect decision quality.
At a high level, situations fall into two types.
Exploratory situations: choices with no precedent, high-risk changes, decisions that touch the foundations of governance. In these situations, taking the time to run all three rounds is what builds a decision that holds up. Round one surfaces rough edges; rounds two and three close them off. This rhythm works.
Executional situations: the external auditor has already reviewed the same type of issue recently, the process is highly repetitive, or all the inputs for a decision are already in place. In situations like these, running fewer rounds may still achieve the same purpose.
Both types share the same goal: protecting decision quality. What differs is the number of steps needed to get there.
What This Insight Changed
This is not about dropping the golden rules.
The limit of three rounds has not changed. We have simply come to see that three rounds is a ceiling, not a fixed count. Depending on the situation, going straight to the external audit or wrapping up in one round can be justified. What that means is: we need clear criteria for making that call.
One more thing changed: the order in which we approach the work.
Before, we were already thinking from round one about how to harden the decision in rounds two and three. Now, we start by asking: "Is this situation exploratory or executional?" That assessment is what determines whether to run the full protocol or to shorten it.
We look at the situation before we enter the protocol. That one step makes a noticeable difference to how much the whole process weighs.
"What conditions call for the full three rounds? What conditions allow for a shorter run?" We carry those questions forward. It takes the same kind of thinking that went into designing the golden rules in the first place.