The Invariant
What stays the same across all four domains
The analytical engine is identical regardless of domain. What changes is the question text — the observable behaviors being assessed. What doesn't change:
Constant Across All Domains
2 Ledgers — Reality (shared truth) and Delivery (owned action). 12 questions each.
8 Categories — 4 per ledger, 3 questions each. Same category names, adapted language.
4 Stages — Insight, Alignment, eXecution, Accountability. Same mapping logic.
Same scoring — 5-point Likert, same thresholds (80/60/40%), same coupling gap, same failure modes (Paralysis, Chaos, Firefighting).
Same disparity analysis — works in any domain where two or more people can take the survey and compare perceptions.
| Category | Professional | Societal | Individual | Interpersonal |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shared Facts | Same data access | Same civic facts | Self-awareness | Shared perception |
| Honest Tradeoffs | Named tradeoffs | Acknowledged costs | Honest self-tradeoffs | Named sacrifices |
| True Constraints | Real limitations | Real civic limits | Honest capacity | Honest boundaries |
| No Spin | Internal consistency | Public honesty | No self-deception | No performance |
| Explicit Ownership | Named outcome owners | Civic responsibility | Personal ownership | Named responsibilities |
| Clear Authority | Matched authority | Empowered actors | Personal agency | Respected autonomy |
| Decision Rights | Process clarity | Governance clarity | Decision process | Joint decisions |
| Sustainable Rhythm | System endurance | Community endurance | Personal sustainability | Relationship endurance |
Domain Selection
The opening question
Before any questions appear, the respondent sees:
"What system would you like to examine?"
Four cards. One tap. The question set loads. The categories rename. The analytical engine is the same. This is the moment the executive at the coffee shop realizes this isn't just a consulting tool — it's a diagnostic model that applies to anything they coordinate.
Domain 1
Professional
Organizations, teams, and business units
Professional — Reality Ledger
12 questions: what we collectively know is true
| ID | Question | Category | Stage |
|---|---|---|---|
| R1 | When a problem surfaces, all stakeholders are working from the same set of facts. | Shared Facts | Insight |
| R2 | Data and status updates reach the people who need them without someone having to chase it down. | Shared Facts | Insight |
| R3 | New team members can find out what is actually happening without relying on tribal knowledge. | Shared Facts | Insight |
| R4 | Tradeoffs are stated out loud before decisions are made — not discovered after. | Honest Tradeoffs | Alignment |
| R5 | People feel safe raising bad news or contradicting the prevailing narrative. | Honest Tradeoffs | Alignment |
| R6 | When two priorities conflict, the organization resolves it explicitly rather than pretending both will get done. | Honest Tradeoffs | Alignment |
| R7 | Resource limitations (time, money, people) are acknowledged openly, not quietly absorbed. | True Constraints | Insight |
| R8 | Deadlines reflect actual capacity, not aspirational thinking. | True Constraints | Insight |
| R9 | When something is not going to work, people say so before it fails — not after. | True Constraints | Insight |
| R10 | Reports to leadership reflect what is actually happening, not a polished version of it. | No Spin | Alignment |
| R11 | The story told to investors, the board, or external partners matches internal reality. | No Spin | Alignment |
| R12 | People do not have to translate between what is said and what is meant in this organization. | No Spin | Alignment |
Professional — Delivery Ledger
12 questions: who owns what, with what authority
| ID | Question | Category | Stage |
|---|---|---|---|
| D1 | Every active initiative has a single person who owns the outcome — not just the tasks. | Explicit Ownership | eXecution |
| D2 | When something goes wrong, it is clear who is accountable without a blame conversation. | Explicit Ownership | eXecution |
| D3 | Ownership is assigned at the start of work, not figured out as things unfold. | Explicit Ownership | eXecution |
| D4 | People with accountability also have the authority to make decisions in their domain. | Clear Authority | eXecution |
| D5 | A decision made by the right person stays decided — it does not get relitigated. | Clear Authority | eXecution |
| D6 | Managers do not need to escalate routine decisions; they have real decision rights. | Clear Authority | eXecution |
| D7 | It is clear which decisions require group input and which are made by an individual. | Decision Rights | Accountability |
| D8 | Meetings end with explicit next steps and named owners, not vague consensus. | Decision Rights | Accountability |
| D9 | Cross-team decisions have a defined process — they do not require a leader to broker every time. | Decision Rights | Accountability |
| D10 | The same fire does not have to be fought more than once. | Sustainable Rhythm | Accountability |
| D11 | Leaders can take time off without the system stalling. | Sustainable Rhythm | Accountability |
| D12 | The pace of work is one the team can maintain for the next twelve months. | Sustainable Rhythm | Accountability |
Domain 2
Societal
Communities, civic organizations, neighborhoods, governance bodies
Societal — Reality Ledger
What the community collectively knows is true
| ID | Question | Category | Stage |
|---|---|---|---|
| R1 | When a community issue arises, residents and leaders are working from the same set of facts. | Shared Facts | Insight |
| R2 | Important information about community decisions reaches everyone affected — not just those who attend meetings. | Shared Facts | Insight |
| R3 | A newcomer to the community can understand what is actually happening without relying on word of mouth or personal connections. | Shared Facts | Insight |
| R4 | When a community decision involves tradeoffs, those tradeoffs are stated openly — not discovered after the decision is made. | Honest Tradeoffs | Alignment |
| R5 | People feel safe raising concerns or disagreeing with the prevailing position without being marginalized. | Honest Tradeoffs | Alignment |
| R6 | When community priorities conflict, the conflict is resolved explicitly rather than ignored until it becomes a crisis. | Honest Tradeoffs | Alignment |
| R7 | Real constraints on what the community can accomplish — budget, legal, capacity — are acknowledged openly. | True Constraints | Insight |
| R8 | Timelines for community projects reflect actual capacity, not political optimism. | True Constraints | Insight |
| R9 | When something is not going to work as planned, someone says so before it fails — not after. | True Constraints | Insight |
| R10 | What is communicated to the public about a community initiative matches what is actually happening behind the scenes. | No Spin | Alignment |
| R11 | Official statements from community leaders reflect the genuine state of affairs, not a curated version. | No Spin | Alignment |
| R12 | People do not have to read between the lines to understand what community leaders actually mean. | No Spin | Alignment |
Societal — Delivery Ledger
Who owns what in the community, with what authority
| ID | Question | Category | Stage |
|---|---|---|---|
| D1 | For every community initiative, there is a specific person or body clearly responsible for the outcome. | Explicit Ownership | eXecution |
| D2 | When a community effort stalls, it is clear who is accountable — not just who was involved. | Explicit Ownership | eXecution |
| D3 | Responsibility for community outcomes is established before work begins, not figured out as things unfold. | Explicit Ownership | eXecution |
| D4 | The people responsible for community outcomes have the actual authority to make decisions in their area. | Clear Authority | eXecution |
| D5 | A decision made through the proper community process stays decided — it does not get relitigated informally. | Clear Authority | eXecution |
| D6 | People in responsible roles can act without needing to escalate routine decisions to a higher authority. | Clear Authority | eXecution |
| D7 | It is clear which community decisions require broad input and which are made by designated individuals or committees. | Decision Rights | Accountability |
| D8 | Community meetings end with explicit next steps and named owners, not vague agreements to "look into it." | Decision Rights | Accountability |
| D9 | When multiple community groups need to coordinate, there is a defined process — not an ad hoc negotiation each time. | Decision Rights | Accountability |
| D10 | The same community issue does not have to be addressed from scratch each time it recurs. | Sustainable Rhythm | Accountability |
| D11 | Community efforts continue functioning when key individuals step back or are unavailable. | Sustainable Rhythm | Accountability |
| D12 | The level of volunteer and civic effort required is one the community can sustain over time without burnout. | Sustainable Rhythm | Accountability |
Domain 3
Individual
Personal effectiveness, self-leadership, life management
Individual — Reality Ledger
How honestly I see my own situation
| ID | Question | Category | Stage |
|---|---|---|---|
| R1 | I have a clear, current picture of where things actually stand in the areas of my life that matter most. | Self-Awareness | Insight |
| R2 | I actively seek out information about my situation rather than relying on assumptions or outdated beliefs. | Self-Awareness | Insight |
| R3 | If someone close to me described my situation, their description would match mine. | Self-Awareness | Insight |
| R4 | When I choose one thing, I openly acknowledge what I'm giving up — rather than pretending I can do it all. | Honest Tradeoffs | Alignment |
| R5 | I can hear critical feedback about myself without dismissing it or becoming defensive. | Honest Tradeoffs | Alignment |
| R6 | When my priorities conflict, I make an explicit choice rather than maintaining the fiction that all of them will get done. | Honest Tradeoffs | Alignment |
| R7 | I acknowledge my real limitations — time, energy, money, skill — rather than quietly overcommitting. | True Constraints | Insight |
| R8 | My personal deadlines and goals reflect what I can actually accomplish, not what I wish I could. | True Constraints | Insight |
| R9 | When something I've committed to is not going to work, I admit it to myself before it fails — not after. | True Constraints | Insight |
| R10 | What I tell others about how I'm doing matches what I actually know to be true. | No Self-Deception | Alignment |
| R11 | The story I tell myself about my life matches the evidence, not the version I'd prefer to believe. | No Self-Deception | Alignment |
| R12 | I do not maintain a gap between what I know is true and what I'm willing to act on. | No Self-Deception | Alignment |
Individual — Delivery Ledger
Whether I own my outcomes and have the agency to deliver
| ID | Question | Category | Stage |
|---|---|---|---|
| D1 | For the things that matter most in my life, I have taken explicit ownership — not left them to circumstance. | Personal Ownership | eXecution |
| D2 | When something in my life isn't working, I look at my own role first rather than attributing it to external forces. | Personal Ownership | eXecution |
| D3 | I decide what I'm responsible for intentionally, rather than letting obligations accumulate by default. | Personal Ownership | eXecution |
| D4 | In the areas where I've taken responsibility, I have genuine authority to make decisions and act. | Personal Agency | eXecution |
| D5 | Once I make a decision, I commit to it rather than second-guessing or relitigating with myself. | Personal Agency | eXecution |
| D6 | I do not defer decisions that are mine to make — I exercise the authority I actually have. | Personal Agency | eXecution |
| D7 | I have a clear sense of which decisions need input from others and which I should make independently. | Decision Clarity | Accountability |
| D8 | When I decide to do something, I define the specific next step and when I will do it. | Decision Clarity | Accountability |
| D9 | When a decision involves other people, I have a clear process for reaching resolution rather than avoiding the conversation. | Decision Clarity | Accountability |
| D10 | I do not find myself solving the same personal problem repeatedly without addressing the root cause. | Sustainable Pace | Accountability |
| D11 | My life does not fall apart when I take a break or step back from active management of everything. | Sustainable Pace | Accountability |
| D12 | The pace at which I am living is one I can maintain for the next twelve months without burning out. | Sustainable Pace | Accountability |
Domain 4
Interpersonal
Partnerships, marriages, close relationships, co-parenting
Interpersonal — Reality Ledger
Whether we see the same relationship
| ID | Question | Category | Stage |
|---|---|---|---|
| R1 | When an issue arises between us, we are working from the same understanding of what happened. | Shared Perception | Insight |
| R2 | Important information that affects both of us is shared proactively — not discovered accidentally. | Shared Perception | Insight |
| R3 | We both have a clear picture of our shared situation — finances, commitments, obligations — without one person holding all the knowledge. | Shared Perception | Insight |
| R4 | When one of us makes a choice that affects the other, the tradeoff is named openly — not absorbed silently. | Named Sacrifices | Alignment |
| R5 | Both of us feel safe bringing up difficult topics without fear of an escalation or shutdown. | Named Sacrifices | Alignment |
| R6 | When our needs or priorities conflict, we address the conflict directly rather than pretending both can be fully met. | Named Sacrifices | Alignment |
| R7 | We are honest with each other about real limitations — time, energy, emotional capacity — rather than overcommitting. | Honest Boundaries | Insight |
| R8 | Our shared commitments reflect what we can actually deliver, not what we wish we could. | Honest Boundaries | Insight |
| R9 | When one of us cannot follow through on something, they say so before it becomes a problem — not after. | Honest Boundaries | Insight |
| R10 | What we communicate to each other matches what we're actually thinking and feeling. | No Performance | Alignment |
| R11 | The version of our relationship we present to others matches what we experience privately. | No Performance | Alignment |
| R12 | Neither of us has to decode what the other really means — we say what we mean. | No Performance | Alignment |
Interpersonal — Delivery Ledger
Who owns what, with what autonomy
| ID | Question | Category | Stage |
|---|---|---|---|
| D1 | For the responsibilities we share, it is clear who owns what — not assumed or left ambiguous. | Named Responsibilities | eXecution |
| D2 | When something falls through the cracks, it is clear whose responsibility it was without an argument about who should have done it. | Named Responsibilities | eXecution |
| D3 | We have explicitly discussed and agreed on who owns what, rather than letting roles evolve by default. | Named Responsibilities | eXecution |
| D4 | Each of us has genuine autonomy in our areas of responsibility — the other respects it rather than overriding it. | Respected Autonomy | eXecution |
| D5 | When one of us makes a decision in our area, the other does not relitigate it or undermine it afterward. | Respected Autonomy | eXecution |
| D6 | Neither of us needs the other's approval for routine decisions in our own domain. | Respected Autonomy | eXecution |
| D7 | It is clear which decisions we make together and which each person makes independently. | Joint Decisions | Accountability |
| D8 | When we discuss something that needs action, we leave the conversation with a specific plan — not a vague understanding. | Joint Decisions | Accountability |
| D9 | When a decision involves external parties (extended family, professionals, institutions), we have a way to reach resolution together without it becoming a power struggle. | Joint Decisions | Accountability |
| D10 | The same disagreement does not cycle back repeatedly because the underlying issue was never resolved. | Relationship Endurance | Accountability |
| D11 | The relationship functions when one person is unavailable, traveling, or going through a difficult period. | Relationship Endurance | Accountability |
| D12 | The emotional and logistical effort required by this relationship is one both people can sustain over time. | Relationship Endurance | Accountability |
Cross-Domain
What the universality reveals
The Insight
The three failure modes are recognizable in every domain:
Paralysis — Professional: everyone sees the problem, no one owns it. Societal: the community studies the issue endlessly and never acts. Individual: you know exactly what's wrong and do nothing about it. Interpersonal: both partners understand the problem and neither takes responsibility for fixing it.
Chaos — Professional: people own things they can't see clearly. Societal: activists act on incomplete information. Individual: you take on commitments without understanding your real capacity. Interpersonal: both partners are doing things for the relationship but they're solving different problems.
Firefighting — Professional: the leader is the system. Societal: one person holds the whole community effort together. Individual: you're perpetually in crisis mode, reacting rather than building. Interpersonal: both partners are exhausted, neither sees clearly, neither owns outcomes — the relationship runs on adrenaline and resentment.
"Does everyone see this the same way? Does someone own the outcome?" These two questions diagnose dysfunction at every scale of human coordination — from a team of twelve to a marriage of two to the committee of voices inside one person's head.
The Coffee Shop Moment
What the executive realizes
When they take the Professional diagnostic at the coffee table and see their scores, that's the hook. When they realize the same model applies to the community board they sit on, the marriage they're navigating, and the personal burnout they're not admitting to — that's the moment it stops being a consulting methodology and becomes a way of seeing.
The universality is not a marketing expansion. It's proof that the model is structural, not domain-specific. Truth and ownership couple the same way everywhere. The tree has roots and canopy whether it's a redwood or a bonsai.