Do It · Growth Library
Turn a Good Intention into an If-Then Plan
Pre-decide one safe response to one clear cue.
Try this
Choose one repeated situation, describe the cue in observable terms, choose a small action you can safely perform when the cue appears, add a fallback for a common exception, use the rule when the situation occurs, and revise or retire it when it stops fitting the work.
Check-in: Did the cue occur, did I follow the chosen action, what exception appeared, and should the rule stay, change, or be removed?
Evidence: Reviewed · source · Sheeran, Listrom & Gollwitzer (2024) — Meta-analysis of implementation intentions across 642 independent tests
Review note: Legacy article replaced after review against the 2024 meta-analysis of 642 independent implementation-intention tests. Public guidance now uses the bounded contingent form If [observable cue], then I will [specific feasible response] and removes unsupported fixed counts, durations, effect sizes, stress claims, and productivity estimates.
An if-then rule is useful when the same small decision keeps returning. Instead of re-deciding from zero, you define the cue and a reasonable response in advance. The rule stays subordinate to context: it should be easy to revise, easy to stop, and narrow enough that exceptions are visible.
1. Choose one recurring situation
Pick a moment that appears often enough to be annoying but is still low stakes: a meeting ending, a request waiting for clarification, a task becoming blocked, or a routine handoff. Avoid building a rule around rare or consequential decisions that deserve fresh judgment.
2. Write the cue and the action
Make the cue observable and the response concrete. For example: If a meeting ends with an unresolved owner, then I add an owner question to the follow-up before closing my notes. The action should be small enough to execute without creating a second planning problem.
3. Add one important fallback
Name a common condition that should suspend or redirect the rule. A fallback might be an approval requirement, unavailable information, an urgent interruption, or a handoff to another owner. The fallback prevents a convenient shortcut from becoming blind automation.
4. Keep only rules that still fit
When the cue occurs, use the rule and notice the result. If the rule repeatedly creates cleanup, gets ignored, or no longer matches the workflow, narrow it, replace it, or remove it. A deleted bad rule is an improvement.
Questions to consider
What makes a useful cue?
Use something you can recognize without interpretation, such as a meeting ending, a task entering a particular status, a file arriving, or a deadline reaching a defined checkpoint.
Should the rule always be followed automatically?
No. The rule is a convenience for a recurring low-stakes choice. It should never override safety, access controls, approvals, contractual duties, or new information that materially changes the situation.
Sources
Evidence state: reviewed. Sources are provided so the underlying material can be inspected directly.
Maintenance record
Review history
Current status: Reviewed. An editorial or evidence review is recorded and no later event changes that conclusion.
2026-09-11 · reviewed · Brali Evidence Reviewer Source: protocol-content-overrides-search-review-wave-5.json
Replace unsupported effect-size claims, fabricated outcomes and observations, health-adjacent triggers, wearable thresholds, and rigid repetition schedules with a bounded cue-action decision rule for ordinary work.
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.
- Version 2026-09-11: current article revision.
- Evidence review 2026-09-11: reviewed by Brali Evidence Reviewer; evidence state is
reviewed.
Canonical source record · Evidence state: reviewed.