1 month

describe your experience when situations related to our session have come up.

when the original trigger has appeared, what happens inside you now.

has the old reactive feeling shown up in a new or unexpected situation.

6 months

has a more complex or difficult version of the old situation appeared. what was your experience of it.

have any moments occurred where the old reaction returned, even briefly. describe what was happening then.

what is it like for you now to remember how you used to feel about the issue.

12 months

reflecting on the past year, how present has the original issue been for you.

when you recall the old problem, what do you notice is present.

describe a high-stakes situation related to the original issue you encountered this year. how did you experience it.

looking back, what do you believe made this resolution durable.

your model assumes insecurities are discrete components that can be individually updated. a system may fail if these are emergent properties of a homeostatic identity. pursuing releases may create a maladaptive system with no functional risk aversion.

"releases per hour" incentivizes speed over depth. this could lead to transient states that fail under pressure, as the system lacks time to integrate change and may snap back to its previous equilibrium.

the model's dependence on a "10x coach" creates a critical point of failure. the criteria for identifying such a coach are undefined and risk circularity. stress-testing, if implemented poorly, could re-traumatize a client.

hypothesis: modulating the rate of change to match the system's integration capacity produces more durable outcomes. smaller, consistent updates with rest periods will show lower rates of symptom recurrence after one year than maximizing session intensity.

hypothesis: interventions must be designed for generalization. protocols that bake in real-world application between sessions will demonstrate greater robustness than those focused on breakthroughs inside a therapeutic container.

hypothesis: mapping the client's entire state-space of emotional responses precedes intervention. modifying the underlying structure of these attractor states yields more global and lasting change than addressing sequential insecurities.

the ideal target is a systems architect within a high-impact organization. they are deputy chiefs, lead engineers, or fund managers who design and direct complex operational flows. these individuals possess immense, often invisible, influence.

recruitment involves a challenge-based application. candidates must publicly commit to a significant, pro-social project outside their primary work for three months. completion serves as verifiable signal of commitment.

participants join a closed triad for a 90-day cycle. they execute a daily protocol of structured, reciprocal support requests via secure application. each request is small, actionable, and focused on present challenges. this practice builds a reliable, responsive relational field.

we track efficacy using social network analysis and biometric stress markers. participants grant access to anonymized calendar and communication metadata pre- and post-protocol. wearable devices provide baseline and follow-up data on heart rate variability. successful outcome is measurable increase in network density and decreased physiological reactivity.

graduation from a triad requires each member to initiate and facilitate a new triad using the same selection process. successful triads become nodes in an expanding network of securely attached agents.

sequence one

locate the resistance in your body.
what are its precise physical sensations.
describe its texture, temperature, movement.
if you fully engaged the project now, what specific outcome does this sensation signal is at risk.
recall a time you felt capable and effective.
embody that state now.
from this resourceful state, observe the sensation and its signaled risk.
what new information about the risk emerges.

sequence two

when you consider starting the project, what is the very first physical micro-sensation you notice.
zoom in on it.
what is its exact quality.
this specific sensation signals a potential danger if you proceed.
what is that core danger.
articulate the worst outcome it points towards.
now, imagine you have successfully completed a small part of the project.
feel that.
look back at the initial sensation and its signaled danger.
how does its intensity or message change now.

sequence three

bring the feeling of 'i do not want to' fully into your awareness.
where is it most concentrated in your body.
describe its energetic signature.
if you pushed through this exact feeling to work on the project, what immediate negative consequence is linked to this feeling.
name it directly.
now, feel into the satisfaction of having this project complete.
let that new feeling grow strong.
how does the anticipated consequence look from this perspective of completion.

when that 'i cannot even' feeling hits for your big project, pause.

what's the specific flavor of dread? are you picturing harsh critique, blank stares, or your own disappointment? describe that core fear.

examine that described fear. what's the actual data supporting its massive impact versus your brain's storytelling skills?

consider that a messy, partially-formed first attempt provides information, a required starting point.

what's the absolute tiniest physical action you can take? opening the file? writing one single sentence? commit to only that micro-step. then do it.