Unknown: Surface Blind Spots with Known/Unknown Quadrants

Surface hidden assumptions and blind spots in any strategy, plan, or decision using the Known/Unknown quadrant framework and hypothesis-driven questioning.

When to Use

• Strategy or planning documents that need scrutiny
• Decisions with unclear direction or hidden assumptions
• Any situation where "what we don't know" matters more than "what we do know"

For specific requirement clarification (feature requests, bug reports), use the vague skill. For content-vs-form reframing (optimizing within a form vs inventing a new form), use the metamedium skill.

Core Principle: Hypothesis-as-Options

ALWAYS use the AskUserQuestion tool for every question in R1/R2/R3 — never ask questions in plain text. The structured format enforces hypothesis-as-options and limits choice fatigue.

Present hypotheses as options instead of open questions. The hypotheses ARE the analysis — by designing good options, 80% of the analytical work is done before the user even answers. The user's job is to confirm, correct, or surprise.

BAD:  "Why can't you do video content?"           ← open question, high load
GOOD: "Time / Skill gap / No guests / High bar"   ← pick one or more

• Each option IS a testable hypothesis about the user's situation
• Use multiSelect: true to catch compound causes
• "Other" is always available for out-of-frame answers

3-Round Depth Pattern

Round	Purpose	Questions	Key trait
R1	Validate draft quadrant	3-4	Broad, covers all quadrants
R2	Drill into weak spots	2-3	Targeted, follows R1 answers
R3	Nail execution details	2-3	Specific, optional

Critical: Generate Round N questions from Round N-1 answers. Never use pre-prepared questions across rounds. Cap total at 7-10 questions.

Protocol

Phase 1: Intake

File provided: Read and extract goals, components, implicit assumptions, missing elements.

Topic keyword only: Start directly with R1 questions to establish scope. The draft in Phase 3 will be rougher but R1 corrects it.

Phase 2: Context

Gather related context to find Unknown Knowns — assets the user may not realize they have:

• Glob for related files: CLAUDE.md, README, decision records, past analyses in the project
• Read project context: recent goals, team structure, active initiatives
• Identify underutilized assets: existing tools/skills not in use, past projects with reusable patterns, team expertise not leveraged

Items discovered here become UK candidates and options in R1 questions.

Phase 3: Draft + R1 Questions

Generate an initial 4-quadrant classification. The draft is intentionally rough — R1 exists to correct it, not confirm it. Err on the side of classifying uncertain items as KU rather than KK.

Design R1 questions to test quadrant boundaries. Batch all R1 questions into a single AskUserQuestion call (max 4 questions):

Target	Pattern	Example
KK	"Is this really certain?"	"Primary revenue source?" (options)
KU	"Where's the weakest link?"	"Which flywheel connection is weakest?"
UK	"What exists but isn't used?"	Based on context findings
UU	"What's the biggest fear?"	Risk scenarios as options

Phase 4: Deepen + R2 Questions

Analyze R1 answers. Find the most uncertain area and drill in.

R2 triggers: compound answers (messy area), unexpected answers (draft wrong), "Other" selected (outside frame).

For detailed R2 question types, see references/question-design.md.

Phase 5: Execute + R3 Questions (Optional)

After priorities are set, nail down execution details for top items. Skip if R2 already provides enough detail.

Phase 6: Playbook Output

Generate a structured 4-quadrant playbook file. For the complete output template, see references/playbook-template.md.

Output structure:

# {Topic}: Known/Unknown Quadrant Analysis

## Current State Diagnosis
## Quadrant Matrix (ASCII with resource %)
## 1. Known Knowns: Systematize (60%)
## 2. Known Unknowns: Design Experiments (25%)
   - Each KU: Diagnosis → Experiment → Success Criteria → Deadline → Promotion Condition
## 3. Unknown Knowns: Leverage (10%)
## 4. Unknown Unknowns: Set Up Antennas (5%)
## Strategic Decision: What to Stop
## Execution Roadmap (week-by-week)
## Core Principles (3-5 decision criteria)

Resource percentages (60/25/10/5) are defaults. Adjust based on context — e.g., a startup exploring product-market fit may allocate 40% KU and 30% KK.

Anti-Patterns

• Open questions ("What would you like to do?") — use hypothesis options
• 5+ options per question — causes choice fatigue
• Ignoring R1 answers when designing R2 — performative questioning
• Equal depth on all quadrants — wastes time, loses focus
• No "stop doing" section — adding without subtracting

Example

Input: Growth strategy document

R1: Revenue source? → Workshops. Weakest link? → Biz→Knowledge. Blocker? → Skill gap + high bar (multiSelect). Biggest fear? → Execution scattered.

R2 (driven by "execution scattered"): What to drop? → Product dev. Why no knowledge→content? → No process + no time + hard to abstract. Role clarity? → Unclear.

R3: Video format? → Screen recording. Retro blocker? → Don't know what to capture. What content resonated? → Raw discoveries.

Key discovery: Abstraction isn't needed — raw insights work better. Collapsed triple bottleneck into 15-minute pipeline.

Rules

1. Hypotheses, not questions: Every option is a testable hypothesis
2. Answers drive depth: R2 from R1, R3 from R2
3. 7-10 questions max: Beyond this is fatigue
4. Stop > Start: Always include "what to stop doing"
5. Promote or kill: Every KU gets a promotion condition and a kill condition
6. Raw > Perfect: Encourage minimum viable experiments, not perfect plans
7. Draft is disposable: The initial quadrant is meant to be corrected

Additional Resources

Reference Files

• references/question-design.md — Detailed question types for each round, trigger conditions, and AskUserQuestion formatting guide
• references/playbook-template.md — Complete output template with section-by-section guide