Designing a cognitive framework for decision clarity (constraints over ideology)

I’ve been working on a cognitive framework focused on one simple goal:
improving decision clarity by constraining how decisions are formed, not by adding more narratives.

The framework emphasizes:

• explicit constraints
• identifiable failure modes
• auditability over persuasion
• reducing narrative drift in complex systems

This is not about optimization, productivity hacks, or ideology.
It’s about cognitive hygiene: making it easier to see where reasoning breaks.

I’m sharing this primarily for critical feedback:

• where do such frameworks usually fail?
• which constraints tend to be underestimated?
• how do you keep a framework useful over time instead of performative?

Reference (open, non-commercial):
https://zenodo.org/records/18209659

Thoughtful critique welcome.

Comments

[Art light]

This is a really thoughtful and refreshing approach — focusing on constraints and failure modes instead of narratives shows strong systems-level thinking. I appreciate how clearly you frame the intent around cognitive hygiene, and inviting critique like this is exactly how frameworks stay honest and useful.❤❤❤

[deltax]

Thanks — I appreciate that.
Focusing on constraints and failure modes is deliberate: narratives tend to scale faster than accountability, and that’s usually where systems start to drift without anyone noticing.

For me, cognitive hygiene is less about prescribing “good reasoning” than about making breakdowns observable early — before they get rationalized away as context, intent, or optimization.

If you’ve seen recurring failure patterns in similar frameworks (especially around incentive pressure, abstraction creep, or performative compliance), I’d genuinely value your perspective. That kind of critique is exactly what keeps this work grounded.