plan-feynman

A Feynman-style plan critique surfaces hidden assumptions by demanding plain-language justification and creating an assumption registry with risk indicators. It prevents over-optimistic reasoning by evaluating plan clarity across multiple lenses.

A Feynman-style plan critique evaluates plan statements for jargon and explainability to ensure plain-language understanding. It structures rationale from first principles to edge cases using a Why Stack, applying CLARIFY, CHALLENGE, or VERIFY modes to guide the review process.

To audit a product strategy for cargo-cult reasoning, run a clarity-first critique that demands plain-language summaries and complexity justification maps. This process identifies unexamined assumptions and evaluates whether the rationale holds up from first principles to edge cases.

Yes, this review method applies to early-stage research proposals, product strategies, and project plans. It evaluates the proposal's clarity, assumptions, and justification, producing structured output artifacts like a risk and complexity map tailored for early-stage validation.

The best way to document plan risks and complexity justifications is to generate structured output artifacts like an assumption registry and a complexity justification map. These outputs classify assumptions with risk indicators and map rationales from first principles to edge cases.

You should avoid a plain-language clarity audit when your plan requires execution-level technical specifications rather than early-stage strategic validation. This critique targets assumptions and jargon in early-stage project plans, product strategies, and research proposals, not detailed implementation steps.