Use FP1 on one consequential decision.
FP1 is modular by design. Its evidence structures, analytical methods and instruments can run as a standalone research workflow or inside an existing intelligence, research, policy, risk or decision-support environment. An engagement starts by naming the decision and the uncertainty it turns on, not by choosing a package.
Where FP1 can be used.
The method can support four kinds of institutional work. The first engagement is scoped around one decision, not a service tier.
Claim-level structure under existing coverage. An analyst's conclusion arrives with its sources, its independence grade and the evidence that would overturn it, which is the part that survives a challenge from a client.
Monitoring tied to the uncertainties a strategy actually turns on, with a written account of which choices an event opens, narrows, or forecloses, and when a foreclosed choice could become available again.
Positions that hold up in front of a committee, because the threshold and its disproof were fixed and dated before the window opened rather than argued afterwards.
A pipeline where every stage declares how much software carries and who is accountable for the judgment, and where any output can be re-graded on the record when it turns out to be wrong.
One decision, pre-registered, then graded.
Every engagement takes the same shape as the published work, because the published work is the demonstration. The difference is the domain and the decision holder.
1. Name the decision
A working session to establish the decision in front of you, who holds it, and the uncertainty it actually turns on. Most of the value of the method comes from getting this stated precisely, and it is the step most monitoring work skips.
2. Register the thresholds
What would count as movement, in which direction each dimension can be proven, and the date each will be graded. These are fixed before tracking opens and frozen inside the window. A threshold that turns out to be wrong is voided in public and re-registered, never quietly moved.
3. Run the pipeline
Evidence is collected and graded, relationships are mapped, the pivotal uncertainty—the uncertainty that matters most to the decision—is named, and the effect on available choices is argued in writing. Output follows the same seven-part brief so two readings can be compared line for line.
4. Grade it
Against the date fixed at the start, whether or not the result favours the analysis. Review criteria for the engagement itself are fixed at the start, so the question of whether the work was useful has an answer rather than an argument.
- Input
- One consequential decision, its decision owner, a defined domain, and existing internal material.
- Process
- Register consequential uncertainties and decision thresholds; collect and grade evidence; apply analytical lenses where useful; review the draft with the decision owner.
- Output
- A dated decision brief, evidence ledger, threshold register, and grading plan.
- Human responsibility
- FP1 analysts and the institution's decision owner remain accountable for judgments.
- Software assistance
- Retrieval, transcript analysis, evidence organization, and formatting where applicable.
Taxonomies, frameworks and domain vocabulary stay with the institution. The instrument, the method and the record stay with FP1. Scope and terms are set per engagement.
Tell us the decision.
The useful first message names the decision, the domain that needs tracking, and when you need to defend a position. We reply with a proposed four-week scope, required inputs, responsibilities, and deliverables.
Institutional and partnership inquiries reach both principals.