01 The Map Navigation
02 CDSA Diagnostic method · includes AND/OR test
03 Trialogue Configuration
01 Navigation

The Map

The method isn't wrong. The level is.

What it does
Maps 47 design and product methodologies across system levels and action types. Shows not only where each method works — but where it stops working and where it causes harm. Empty zones on the map are intentional: they mark structural gaps in the discipline itself.
When to use
When a method is producing outputs but the system isn't moving. When you need to know which approach actually reaches the level where the problem lives. When you want to see the full landscape before choosing where to work.
What you get
The system level and action type of the problem. The mismatch between where your current method operates and where the problem lives. The nearest available tool — or confirmation that you are in a structural gap.
Open the map →
Procedure
Input: a problem or stuck method Output: level + action type + zone
01
Describe the symptom
State what is happening: what method is being applied, what output it produces, why the system isn't moving.
02
Locate on the vertical axis
Ask: at what system level does the problem actually live? Perception · Behaviour · Interface · Workflow · Organisation · Value Model · Architecture.
03
Locate on the horizontal axis
Ask: what type of action is needed? Diagnosis · Generation · Prioritisation · Resolution · Optimisation.
04
Find the cell — check for methods
Open the map. Find the intersection. If the cell is empty — you are in a structural gap. If it has methods — check their illusion and harm zones against your situation.
05
Check the level mismatch
Compare where the method being applied operates vs. where the problem lives. Most failures are level mismatches — not method failures.
Output System level and action type of the problem · Method mismatch if present · Nearest available tool — or confirmation of a structural gap
Specifications
Type Spatial map · Interactive
Coverage 47 methodologies · 7 system levels · 5 action types
Axes Y — System level (Perception → Architecture)
X — Action type (Diagnosis → Optimisation)
Per method 4 perspectives: entry point, maximum impact, illusion zone, harm zone
Empty zones Intentional — mark structural gaps in the discipline
Use when
You need to choose between methods and want to know which one reaches the problem level
A method is producing outputs but the system isn't moving
You want to see the full methodology landscape before choosing where to work
02 Diagnostic method

CDSA

Not every contradiction should be resolved. Some should be maintained.

What it does
Contradiction-Driven Systems Architecture. A diagnostic framework for the architectural level — where standard methods stop operating. CDSA distinguishes three phenomena the field currently treats as one: real fork, false fork, and productive contradiction. Confusing them produces three different kinds of failure. Includes the AND/OR test as its pre-diagnostic step.
When to use
When standard methods have been applied correctly and the system still doesn't move. When a contradiction keeps returning in different forms after each resolution attempt. When the team is facing a high-stakes either/or decision at the architectural level.
What you get
A precise classification of the contradiction type — real fork, false fork, or productive contradiction. A typed intervention for each: what to do, and critically, what not to do. Clarity on whether the contradiction should be resolved, maintained, or reframed.
Explore CDSA →
Procedure
Input: architectural contradiction Output: phenomenon type + intervention
01
Confirm you are at the Architecture level
The situation resists standard methods. High stakes. The contradiction keeps returning after each resolution attempt. Use the Map to verify: the problem lives at the Architecture level (Level 7).
02
Run the AND/OR test
Ask: is AND structurally possible? This determines the branch of analysis. See the Trialogue tool if the position itself is the constraint.
03
Classify the phenomenon
AND impossible → Real fork. AND possible but invisible → False fork or productive contradiction. Distinguish by asking: does the tension drive the system, or obstruct it?
04
Apply the typed intervention
Real fork: choose consciously, map what closes. False fork: find the position from which AND is visible. Productive contradiction: do not resolve — diagnose and stimulate.
05
Check applicability conditions
Verify: is there sufficient psychological safety? Are you dealing with a conflict of interest rather than a structural contradiction? Is there time for diagnostic precision?
Output Phenomenon type (real fork · false fork · productive contradiction) · Typed intervention · Clarity on whether CDSA is the right tool for this situation
Specifications
Type Diagnostic framework
Operates at Level 7 — Architecture & Forks
Action type Operates between Diagnosis and Resolution at the Architecture level
Distinguishes Real fork · False fork · Productive contradiction
Does not work Low psych. safety · Conflicts of interest · Acute time deficit
Lineage Extends TRIZ contradiction logic to digital product systems
Use when
Standard methods have been applied correctly and the system still doesn't move
The team is facing a high-stakes either/or situation at the architectural level
A contradiction keeps returning in different forms after each resolution attempt
03 Configuration

Trialogue

The gap between two AIs makes the frame visible.

What it does
A thinking configuration: human + AI + AI. The divergence between two structurally different AI contexts is itself the instrument. Where one AI gives an answer, you see the subject. Where two AIs diverge, you see the contours of the subject — where knowledge is solid, where it is uncertain, where it is structurally contested. The human's role is not to judge which AI is right — it is to identify what the divergence marks.
When to use
When the problem cannot be solved inside the existing frame — the frame itself needs to change. When solo thinking keeps returning to the same position regardless of new information. When CDSA diagnosis shows that the position is the constraint, not just the contradiction.
What you get
A visible frame — what was invisible context becomes inspectable. Access to the positional level. The gap as a map of where the question is structurally contested. Trialogue does not guarantee positional change. It creates a non-zero chance of making the frame visible.
Read the full observation →
Procedure
Input: question where frame is the constraint Output: visible gap + positional access
01
Identify the question
Choose a question where solo thinking keeps returning to the same position. The problem is not complexity — it is that the frame itself is the constraint.
02
Assign two structurally different contexts
Give each AI a genuinely different context of inference — different role, different constraints, different starting assumptions. This is not a difference of tone or opinion. It is a structural difference of frames.
03
Run the question through both positions
Ask the same question to each AI independently. Do not show one AI the other's response yet.
04
Locate the gap
Where do the two responses diverge? The gap is not a problem to resolve — it is the instrument. It marks the live boundary of confident knowledge for this specific question.
05
Read the gap — do not collapse it
Ask: does this divergence mark a boundary of knowledge, a difference of frames, or a failure? The human's task is to hold both contexts simultaneously — not to choose between them.
Output A visible frame — what was previously invisible context becomes inspectable · Access to the positional level · The gap as a diagnostic map of where the question is structurally contested
Specifications
Type Research configuration
Participants Human researcher · AI position A · AI position B
Primary instrument The gap between two structurally different AI contexts
Human function Structural break in the loop — not moderator, not judge
Gives access to Positional level — where the frame itself becomes visible
Does not guarantee Positional change — that step remains with the human
Status Working model · Under active investigation
Use when
The problem cannot be solved inside the existing frame — the frame itself needs to change
Solo thinking keeps returning to the same position regardless of new information
You need to see the limits of your own context from outside
One possible path

How the tools can work together

The tools can be used independently. When the problem deepens, they form a natural progression — each revealing what the previous one cannot reach. Here is one scenario.

Situation: A product team has been applying Design Thinking for three quarters. Research is solid, insights are real, prototypes test well. The system doesn't move. The core problem returns in every sprint.
The Map
Locate the level mismatch
Design Thinking operates at levels 1–3 (Perception, Behaviour, Interface). The symptom — a problem that returns despite correct execution — points to level 6–7 (Value Model, Architecture). The method is right. The level is wrong.
CDSA · AND/OR test
Test the fork
The team sees a binary: either rebuild the value model or keep optimising the product. Ask: is AND structurally possible? No — this is a real fork. Two directions cannot both be fully pursued.
CDSA · Classification
Name what it is
This is not a productive contradiction — the tension is not driving the system, it is stalling it. It is a real fork being treated as a workflow problem. The intervention: make the fork visible to the whole team and decide consciously.
Trialogue · if needed
Only if the position is the constraint
In this scenario, Trialogue is not required — the fork is clear, the decision belongs to the team. Trialogue would become relevant if the diagnosis showed that the team cannot see the fork because their frame prevents it.

This is one possible path through the tools — not a prescribed sequence. The entry point always depends on where the problem lives. Each tool can be used independently.