Solve Hard Problems Systematically

Proof required

Submit your 2-week problem log (at least 8 entries with four fields per entry: initial framing / first move / reframe — yes/no + how / time spent) plus a 200-word signature analysis naming one specific recurring weakness with evidence from at least 2 log entries.

What gets checked

• 8 real problems documented with all four fields — invented or hypothetical examples do not count; the log must be drawn from actual situations you encountered
• Signature analysis names one specific weakness and cites at least 2 log entries as evidence, not a general observation disconnected from the data
• At least 3 of the 8 problems are open-ended or ambiguous (no single correct answer) — a log of 8 well-defined procedural tasks does not reveal the signature that matters

Common mistakes

• Selecting only simple, well-defined problems where the first framing is always correct — the log should include problems where the initial framing proved wrong
• Writing all 8 entries retrospectively in one sitting at the end of 2 weeks — the instinctive first move can only be captured in the moment
• Signature analysis that is too broad to be actionable ('I sometimes rush') rather than specific and evidenced from the log

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Confirm entries have dates spread across the 2 weeks — all 8 entries filed on the same day indicate retrospective writing
• Check that at least 3 problems are genuinely open-ended — if all 8 are procedural tasks, the log does not reveal problem-solving skill
• Ask the submitter to explain their signature weakness using a specific log entry — can they articulate what they missed in the moment?
• The reframe field should show genuine pattern — if all 8 say 'no reframe needed', ask the submitter why — it is very rare to face 8 significant problems without any needing reframing

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit your 3 structured problem-solving case studies (minimum 300 words each): problem statement / every step of the chosen method with specific outputs at each step / solution implemented / outcome or outcome-pending with reason. One case study must involve an open-ended problem. The same method must appear across all 3.

What gets checked

• Every step of the chosen method is documented with actual outputs — not a high-level summary of what the method involves but what you produced at each step
• At least one case study involves an open-ended problem where the 'right answer' was genuinely unknown in advance
• Outcome section present for all 3 cases — what happened when the solution was tried, not just what the solution was; if outcome is pending, explain why and what you expect

Common mistakes

• All 3 problems are narrow technical problems with single correct answers — applying a structured method to a problem that has an obvious answer does not demonstrate problem-solving growth
• Skipping steps in the method without explanation — if a step 'didn't apply', state why specifically; blanket skipping signals the method was not genuinely applied
• Outcome section omitted because the solution is 'still being implemented' — a real outcome (even partial) or a documented prediction with a timeline is required

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Check that the same method appears across all 3 case studies — switching between 5 Whys and SCAMPER is not applying one method rigorously
• For the open-ended case, confirm there was genuinely no single correct answer in advance — the 'open-ended' criterion should not be met by relabelling a diagnostic problem
• Ask the submitter to walk through one step of the method that surprised them — this tests genuine engagement vs. mechanical compliance
• If any step is missing from the documentation, ask why — 'it didn't apply' needs a specific reason, not just omission

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit your M2 portfolio (3 case studies) plus the reviewer's written assessment from the M3 session: the problem they presented (verbatim or close paraphrase), their notes on how you approached it covering framing / assumption-testing / option generation / ambiguity handling, one thing you did well and one specific gap, and their sign-off confirming a live session with a novel problem they brought.

What gets checked

• Reviewer assessment is behaviorally specific — names actual moves observed during the 30-minute session, not generic praise or criticism
• Reviewer confirms in writing that the problem was novel and that the submitter had no prior exposure to it
• Reviewer minimum qualification: 5+ years solving open-ended professional problems (senior engineer, consultant, entrepreneur, researcher, or equivalent) — a peer without this background does not qualify

Common mistakes

• The session becomes a presentation of M2 work rather than live solving of a novel problem — the reviewer must bring a fresh problem and the session must be observational
• Reviewer assessment is generic ('did well overall', 'good thinker') without noting specific behaviours — this cannot be verified
• The submitter prepares extensively for what kind of problem the reviewer might bring, coaching themselves in advance — the novel problem must be genuinely novel in content, not just unfamiliar in form

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Confirm the problem you brought was genuinely novel to the submitter — ask them to describe their first 30 seconds of encountering it, which should reveal surprise or uncertainty
• Look for evidence of framing before solving: did the submitter restate or challenge the problem before attempting a solution? This is the most important single behaviour to assess
• Note whether multiple approaches were generated before committing to one — a solver who commits to the first approach without considering alternatives has not yet developed the skill
• Reviewer minimum qualification: 5+ years solving open-ended professional problems (senior engineer, experienced consultant, entrepreneur with real problem-solving track record) — peers without this background do not qualify

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.