Fact
Reasonably established
A claim supported well enough for the current decision context. Still open to correction if better evidence appears.
The map before the model
What kind of reality are we actually looking at?
A decision can fail because we modeled the wrong layer - or because an observation, interpretation and assumption were all treated as the same thing. Reality Map checks both.
Reality has layers
The same decision can involve several mechanisms at once.
Axis 1 · Epistemic type
First label what kind of statement you are dealing with.
Observation
Directly seen or experienced
Who observed it? When? In what context? One observation is a signal, not automatically a general law.
Interpretation
What we think it means
An explanation placed on top of facts or observations. Useful - but not the same thing as what happened.
Assumption
What must be true
A dependency inside the model that has not yet earned fact status.
Unknown
Important missing information
Something potentially decision-relevant that we do not currently know.
Axis 2 · Reality layer
Then ask where the mechanism lives.
01
Self
Goals, values, identity, emotional state, skill, energy, constraints and risk tolerance.
02
Perception
Attention, priors, assumptions, confidence and mental models shape what reaches you as “reality.”
03
People
Incentives, values, identity, status, beliefs, traits and temporary state.
04
Strategic interaction
What people do when they anticipate and react to one another.
05
Culture & groups
Norms, legitimacy, shared stories, identity and social enforcement.
06
Systems
Feedback loops, delays, stocks, flows, rules, information flows and emergent behavior.
07
Processes
Flow, bottlenecks, queues, handoffs, variation and execution.
08
Environment
Economics, law, technology, physical constraints, competition, geography and risk.
09
Information
Sources, incentives, algorithms, provenance, generated content and the context layer between events and your model.
The matrix
A useful Reality Map is two-dimensional.
A “people” statement can still be a fact, observation, interpretation, assumption or unknown. The matrix keeps those questions separate.
| Layer | Fact | Observation | Interpretation | Assumption | Unknown |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| People | Role / contract / KPI | “Three team members stopped escalating to him.” | “The team lost trust.” | “Trust is the main cause of the KPI miss.” | What do direct reports actually say privately? |
| Systems | Decision rights are documented | Approvals repeatedly return to the founder | The COO lacks authority | More authority would improve throughput | Which decisions are actually bottlenecked? |
| Environment | New regulation takes effect on date X | Competitors changed pricing | Market pressure is rising | Pressure will persist 12 months | How elastic is customer demand? |
Provenance
Consensus is weaker when everyone ultimately relies on the same source.
Reality Skill asks where a signal came from: direct observation, personal experience, public evidence, another participant, second-hand report or intuition. Five similar estimates built on one report are not five independent pieces of evidence.
The goal is not to see everything. It is to notice the missing statement type or reality layer that could actually change the decision.
Use the map
Turn the Reality Map into a decision worksheet.
The Solo Decision Template combines epistemic type + reality layers with alternatives, outside view, competing models, premortem, private estimates and outcome review.
Next
Map reality before asking the room for advice.
Once the map is explicit, the protocol can decide whether the next step is a rule, experiment, structured solo work, async human panel or Chartroom.