Talk Smart · Growth Library
Run a Six-Perspective Thinking Pass
Try de Bono’s Six Thinking Hats
Try this
Write one question. Make six short passes: facts and unknowns; reactions and preferences; risks and failure modes; benefits and opportunities; alternatives and experiments; then process and next step. Keep observations in their own pass so facts are not silently mixed with preferences or forecasts.
Check-in: Which perspective added information the first discussion was missing, and what decision, question, or test follows from it?
Evidence: Practical guidance; no evidence-like claim is detected in the current source record.
Review note: The inherited article contained unsupported effectiveness claims, invented team observations, fabricated timing and conversion examples, and arbitrary experiment thresholds. The effective public record is rewritten as a neutral six-perspective facilitation checklist that separates facts, reactions, risks, opportunities, alternatives, and process without claiming that the sequence improves outcomes or has an evidence-backed optimal timing.
A discussion often mixes evidence, preference, caution, optimism, ideation, and process into the same sentence. This six-pass checklist separates them temporarily so the group can see what kind of statement it is making. It is a facilitation structure, not a claim that six passes or any fixed timing improves decisions by a measured amount.
1. Frame one question
Write the decision or problem in one sentence. Define the boundary: what is in scope, what is not, and who owns the final decision.
2. Run six distinct passes
Facts: knowns, sources, and unknowns. Reactions: preferences, concerns, and intuitions. Risks: failure modes and constraints. Opportunities: plausible benefits. Alternatives: other options and small tests. Process: what must happen next, by whom, and what remains unresolved.
3. Label uncertainty instead of filling it
If a number, causal explanation, or forecast is not supported, mark it as an assumption or question. Do not turn a perspective exercise into invented evidence merely because the discussion needs closure.
4. Close with one explicit next step
Summarize what changed after the six passes. Decide, request missing evidence, assign an owner, or define a reversible test. If the passes added no useful distinction, use a simpler checklist next time.
Questions to consider
Do I need fixed colors, order, or timings?
No evidence-backed optimum is claimed here. The practical value of the checklist is separation of perspectives. Use labels, colors, order, and timeboxes that help the group stay clear rather than treating them as a scientific dose.
Can this replace evidence or domain expertise?
No. The facts pass should expose what is known and unknown, not manufacture certainty. If the decision requires technical, legal, medical, financial, or safety expertise, bring that evidence and expertise into the process.
What should the session produce?
A useful output is modest: a clearer map of the question, unresolved facts, important risks and opportunities, alternatives worth considering, and one explicit next step or decision owner.
Maintenance record
Review history
Current status: Reviewed. An editorial or evidence review is recorded and no later event changes that conclusion.
2026-09-10 · reviewed · Brali claim cleanup agent Source: protocol-content-overrides-claim-cleanup-batch-4.json
Replace unsupported effectiveness claims, invented team observations, fabricated timing and conversion examples, and arbitrary experiment thresholds with a neutral six-perspective facilitation checklist.
Browse the review ledger · Challenge or update this hack
Implementation observations can trigger a review, but they cannot change an evidence conclusion by themselves. Commercial relationships do not control review status or outcomes.
Continue from here
Choose the next useful path.
Article versions
Brali keeps substantive article history visible. Later reviews may refresh wording, sources, examples, or boundaries without silently replacing the record.
- Version 2025-10-06: first recorded publication in the migrated Brali corpus.
- Evidence review 2026-09-10: reviewed by Brali claim cleanup agent; evidence state is
practical.
Canonical source record · Evidence state: practical.