Meaning Discovery¶

Meaning Discovery is the first step of the Commitment Design System (CDS). Its purpose is to discover and align on shared reality — so intent refinement begins from truthfully stated conditions, needs, and frictions rather than assumptions or solution narratives.

Meaning Discovery does not produce solutions. It produces meaning in a form that can be reliably translated into intent.

Purpose¶

Meaning Discovery exists to:

Establish a shared understanding of the situation (what is true, and for whom).
Identify needs (what must be true for the situation to improve).
Name problems/frictions (what prevents needs from being met).
Make stakes visible (who benefits, who pays, who can block, who must operate the outcome).
Capture evidence and uncertainty so later stages remain inspectable.

Boundaries¶

Meaning Discovery is complete when the group can say:

“We agree on the conditions we are operating under.”
“We agree on the needs that matter most right now.”
“We can name the frictions blocking those needs.”
“We know who is affected and what is at stake.”
“We can point to evidence and unknowns — not just opinions.”

Meaning Discovery is not complete when:

The conversation is still dominated by solution proposals.
Stakeholders are missing and meaning is being inferred on their behalf.
The “problem” is just a list of features not yet built.

Core outputs¶

Meaning Discovery produces the Meaning Handshake artifact. It is the canonical output schema for meaning in CDS.

The Meaning Handshake is designed to be:

lightweight
inspectable
usable as direct input to Intent Refinement

Process¶

Meaning Discovery can be run as a short alignment session or a deeper discovery effort. Regardless of duration, it follows the same substages.

Step 1: Establish the situation¶

Align on what prompted the work now:

What changed?
What broke?
What opportunity appeared?
Why is this being discussed today (and not six months ago)?

Step 2: Capture conditions¶

Document the key conditions shaping the situation:

environmental constraints (market, regulation, deadlines)
operational constraints (systems, process bottlenecks, access)
organizational constraints (ownership, incentives, capacity)
climate conditions (trust level, fatigue, conflict temperature)

Step 3: Identify needs¶

Translate the situation into needs:

What must be true for this to feel meaningfully improved?
What must be protected (non-negotiables at the human/system level)?
What needs are in tension (speed vs safety, autonomy vs alignment)?

Step 4: Name frictions and failure patterns¶

Describe what blocks needs today:

bottlenecks and delays
rework loops
unclear decision rights
semantic confusion
dependency traps (approvals, access, procurement, other teams)

Step 5: Map stakeholders and stakes¶

Make meaning multi-perspective:

who experiences the pain directly
who benefits most if solved
who pays (money, risk, reputation)
who can block or slow change
who must operate the outcome long-term

Step 6: Gather evidence and signals¶

Anchor meaning in signals:

qualitative evidence (observations, quotes, support tickets)
quantitative evidence (cycle time, errors, churn, cost)
boundary cases (when it does not happen, when it is worse)

Step 7: Make uncertainty explicit¶

List assumptions and unknowns:

what we believe but haven’t verified
what we disagree about
what would change the framing if proven false

Meaning Handshake artifact¶

A minimal Meaning Handshake includes:

Situation (why now)
Conditions
Needs
Frictions / Problems
Stakeholders & Stakes
Evidence & Signals
Assumptions & Unknowns

This artifact is intentionally not a requirements document. It is a meaning capture that preserves what is usually lost: context, stakes, and uncertainty.

Core quality checks¶

Use these checks before moving to Intent Refinement.

Meaning coherence checks¶

Conditions are stated in a way others can recognize (not private interpretations).
Needs are expressed as “must be true” statements, not solutions.
Frictions clearly explain why needs are not met.

Multi-perspective checks¶

At least one stakeholder group is represented or their input is captured.
Stakes are not assumed to be aligned; tensions are named.

Evidence checks¶

At least one concrete signal supports the narrative.
The team can say what would disconfirm the framing.

Uncertainty checks¶

Unknowns are explicit rather than silently embedded.
Disagreements are captured as differences in meaning, not personality conflicts.

Common failure patterns¶

Solution-first discovery: jumping to implementation before meaning is aligned.
Single-perspective meaning: meaning defined by one role without stakeholder input.
Myth framing: strong narrative with no evidence or falsification path.
Hidden stakes: unspoken fears, incentives, or status threats surface later as resistance.

Meaning Discovery hands off via the Meaning Handshake. The next step, Intent Refinement, uses it to shape decision-grade intent: outcomes, boundaries, constraints, tradeoffs, assumptions, evidence expectations, and decision rights.