Generated from the maintained method library. Read or download equivalent Markdown.
On this page
- Legant Method Reference
- Reader contract
- 1. Current architecture
- 2. Core model
- 3. Direction: the "What I choose" answers (formerly the Four Narrative Constraints)
- 4. Framework inventory by method function
- 5. Applied protocols and artifacts
- 6. Evidence status
- 7. Source lineage and compatibility
- 8. Change rule
- 9. Related writing
Legant Method Reference
Status / authority: Current canonical Method Reference and architecture entry
Effective date: 2026-09-25 (principle "Produce, not predict" added 2026-10-08, LL-ADR-021; nine-question Operating Manual adopted 2026-10-20, LL-ADR-022; it replaces the Four Narrative Constraints for new work, LL-ADR-024)
Dependencies: Supporting architecture detail; accepted methodology decisions; current client-readable framework and protocol documents, with Direction/Four Narrative Constraints.md now a legacy record; frozen ARC legacy release
Supersedes: The published-page-first architecture ownership; the methodology-routing role of ARC_Reference_Index.md. It does not erase or rewrite legacy ARC sources.
Reader contract
This reference is the coherent current foundation an agent reads before consequential Legant-governed judgment. It makes the detailed method inspectable without mixing it with agent rules, skills, active-client information, business strategy, internal file trees, or production logs. It is written for efficient application: establish the architecture and distinctions here, then descend only to the specific framework, research, application, or raw source a load-bearing claim requires.
This reference is the canonical entry for the method: hypothesis, aim, principles, six steps, five alignments, core concepts, framework routes and evidence boundaries. Supporting architecture detail explains the steps and alignments; current framework documents govern their named scopes. Public summaries are derived from these internal sources. Omission from a public summary does not retire a framework. Internal-first describes ownership, not secrecy: method material can remain client-readable.
The method remains source-traced and revisable. The current source for each framework governs that framework. The frozen ARC release remains the recovery source for definitions that have not yet been reorganized into a current Legant document. A legacy definition stays historical unless a current source reaffirms it.
1. Current architecture
Hypothesis
Alignment = fulfillment. The better aligned a person is, the more of their finite energy converts into valued accomplishment.
The causal chain under test is:
finite energy → better alignment and less avoidable friction → more energy reaches valued accomplishment → greater fulfillment
Legant treats this as a theory with a stated causal chain. It cannot yet measure the relationship precisely or show that it is true.
Aim
Imagine one million possible lives branching from the person's actual present state and playing out to age 95. The method aims toward the one the person would not trade for any of the others: the G.O.A.T., or Greatest Of All Timelines, still feasible from here.
The theoretical optimum is not knowable in advance. The working task is to improve the next choice using the best current model and evidence. Every consequential choice or external event changes the feasible futures. At the next decision, comparison starts from that new actual state; past trajectories cannot be recovered, although their evidence, consequences, assets, and constraints remain relevant.
It compares possible directions by whether they fit the person, hold together across the life, and contribute beyond it.
That complete life is a plural composition with an organizing center. The Operating Manual's "What I choose" answers can give its story a central contribution-bearing direction without turning every hour or activity into building the Sagrada. Sleep and dreaming are the simplest limit case: they belong in a GOAT life even though no stone is being laid. The same is true of supporting effort, relationships, responsibility, health, play, rest, curiosity, and other pursuits that sustain the person, sustain the direction, or make the life worth choosing.
Coherence means the parts form a workable whole around that center and their trade-offs are visible. It does not require every activity to advance the cause, compound into the Build, or leave a public mark.
Governing principles
| Principle | Current meaning |
|---|---|
| A person's nature is unique and partly stable | Build around recurring nature instead of forcing that nature to fit a preselected life. |
| The default is misalignment | Neither evolved nature nor social systems reliably lead toward individual alignment. |
| Align from the inside out | Start with who the person is and the life they are trying to build before tuning lower-leverage roles, habits, metrics, or environments. |
| The right constraints create thrust | A useful constraint channels finite energy; a harmful one wastes it; an absence of constraint scatters it. |
| Story is the current of a life | A person's life narrative shapes their attention, interpretation, and action, so own it on purpose: choose an evidence-based story that pulls toward aligned action, and keep editing it as evidence and context change. |
| The most aligned path cannot be predicted | Action generates the evidence that reveals where to move next. |
| Produce, not predict | The method aims to produce better outcomes, not to forecast them. Predicting a client's decisions is not a valid test: the practitioner influences those decisions, so predicting them is bias, not evidence. What counts is the benefit produced, in two forms: a unique external contribution (impact that is hard to replace, or something new) and self-trust (the inner confidence to make coherent decisions). Measure these as objectively as possible; self-report alone is not enough, because a deluded person can rate themselves highly. Claims of benefit compare each person with their own starting point. |
Six steps
| Step | Method job |
|---|---|
| 1. Gather the data | Collect raw information through multiple lenses: what the person has done, how they decided, and what they hope for. |
| 2. Converge a working model | Identify and test the recurring pattern that best explains how the person operates, creates value, and helps that value reach others. |
| 3. Build the Operating Manual | Turn the working model into a person-owned artifact that can be understood, challenged, and used: the "About me" answers of the nine-question Operating Manual (§2). Adapt it for a team or AI assistant when needed. |
| 4. Set a direction | Form a long-view working direction, clear enough to guide the next move and open enough to change with experience. Record it in the Operating Manual's "What I choose" answers. |
| 5. Generate new evidence | Take a stepping stone that tests the Operating Manual and direction in practice. |
| 6. Interpret and update | Review evidence of alignment and misalignment. Decide whether the model, direction, context, behavior, or nothing should change. |
Five alignments
| Alignment | Relationship being brought into fit |
|---|---|
| Self | natural inclinations and recurring patterns ↔ conscious self-understanding |
| Expression | best way of operating ↔ actual activity that uses and develops it |
| Context | best operation and output ↔ environment and receiver needs |
| Relationships | how each person operates and what each needs ↔ how they interact |
| Time | present choices and chapters ↔ a coherent whole-life composition over time |
The steps describe how the method works. The alignments describe what it is trying to bring into fit. They are related views, not competing process models.
2. Core model
| Concept | Current role | Boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Inner Species | The person's distinctive, recurring nature: capacities, needs, patterns, sensitivities, environments, and ways of creating value. | Not a personality type, fixed label, or excuse. |
| Rider | Conscious interpretation, planning, narration, and deliberate direction. | Not automatically an accurate reader of the Inner Species. |
| Innate Edge | A person's distinctive pattern of useful difference when their wiring is operating well. | Not a generic strength list or stated aspiration. |
| Core Tension | The recurring kind of consequential mismatch to which a person is characteristically attuned. | Not a method step, fifth Narrative Constraint, synonym for Violation, or automatically worthy direction. |
| Violation | A negatively valenced instance of Core Tension: something experienced as wrong, wasted, missing, distorted, or unfit. | Not interchangeable with Core Tension. |
| Verb | The recurring move through which the person creates useful change. | Not a generic skill, passion, or job title. |
| Vision | A motivating picture of the person's edge more fully expressed. | Not a predetermined destiny. |
| Source of Scatter | The dominant way finite energy diffuses instead of concentrating. | Not a moral flaw, generic weakness list, or label for every non-compounding or intrinsically valuable activity. |
| Nozzle | An accepted constraint that concentrates output by giving the Source of Scatter a bounded, useful form. | Not suppression, shrinkage, or motivational self-discipline. |
| Archetype | A memorable noun-handle for the recurring mechanism after evidence is strong enough to support one. | Not the Inner Species itself and not a decorative persona. |
| Operating Manual | The client-owned working model and chosen direction made legible and usable, in nine questions (below). | Not an assessment result, coaching plan, or static verdict. |
| Personal Challenge | A hard, proud, contribution-bearing quest that lets a person repeatedly run demonstrated edge into one accumulating build. | Not a generic purpose statement, role, theme, experiment menu, or the single purpose of the whole life. |
| Sagrada | The long-term body of work or capability that accumulates stone by stone and remains valuable while unfinished. | Not one current vehicle, a grandiose legacy claim, or a demand that everything meaningful feed the build. |
| Vehicle | A role, project, business, institution, practice, or other arena through which the pattern can operate. | Not the person's identity or destiny. |
| Stepping Stone | A bounded, consequential move that puts a direction or strategy bet into contact with reality and is expected to produce useful decision evidence, durable contribution, or both, at a cost justified against alternatives. | Not motion for its own sake, guaranteed compounding, or a poor move excused after the fact because some lesson was eventually found. |
Operating Manual: nine questions
The Operating Manual is the method's central client artifact. It answers nine plain questions, each carrying one internal term.
| Part | # | Internal term | Question |
|---|---|---|---|
| About me | 1 | Core Tension | What draws me in? |
| 2 | Verb | How do I operate at my best? | |
| 3 | Fuel | What makes the work rewarding? | |
| 4 | Context | Under what conditions do I work best? | |
| 5 | Traps | Where do I reliably go wrong? | |
| What I choose | 6 | Contribution | What am I using myself for? |
| 7 | Sagrada | What am I building over time? | |
| 8 | Waypoint | Where am I heading toward now? | |
| 9 | Bearing | What life do I want this to belong within? |
- The first five answers are hypotheses about the person, built in Step 3 from the working model. The last four are the person's choices, formed in Step 4. Evidence can challenge any of the nine; the person keeps the final say on their direction.
- Each answer is a short top line the person owns. Beneath it sits traceable detail: sources, how the answer changed, evidence for and against, and open questions. "About me" answers carry an evidence strength: strong, moderate, or guess.
- The person's current circumstances live in a separate Baseline, so present conditions do not quietly rewrite the model or the direction.
- Source of Scatter is now carried by Traps. Nozzle and Boundary Line remain current concepts and can appear in the detail beneath an answer. Whether and where an Archetype belongs is an open question: a short identity handle (for example, "Decoder") can be useful once the evidence supports one. None is a required section of its own.
- Operating Manuals delivered to past clients keep their structure and vocabulary. For active clients, moving to the nine questions can be offered when it suits the work.
- The question wording and internal terms are current for now and may be renamed through a later decision (LL-ADR-022).
3. Direction: the "What I choose" answers (formerly the Four Narrative Constraints)
For new direction-setting work, the nine-question Operating Manual replaces the Four Narrative Constraints: Step 4 records the direction in its "What I choose" answers, questions 6–9 (§2), and the supporting architecture detail explains the full Step 4 architecture. The Four Narrative Constraints had replaced V-V-V / Focus Line on 2026-07-29. Direction/Four Narrative Constraints.md is now a legacy record, kept to interpret artifacts made with it and for the guidance noted below. Its four questions were:
| Constraint (legacy) | Question |
|---|---|
| How / Engine | What is the person's distinctive repeatable move? |
| Why / Stakes | What good must be restored, protected, connected, or made possible, and for whom or for what? |
| Challenge / Adversary | What opposing force or pattern does the work take a stance against? |
| Build / What Accumulates | What body of work, expertise, method, ability, casebook, product family, institution, or proof archive compounds through repeated attempts? |
Direction work also distinguishes the person's ability to explain and revise the direction from their reasons for pursuing it. The detailed Four Narrative Constraints source reads those reasons from behaviour first and then from the person's account, treating any gap between the two as evidence, and does not treat motivational intensity as proof of ownership or fit. Tension Framework reads moral concerns as evidence when a discrepancy is experienced in moral terms, asking what good or obligation is at stake and whether the charge is about stopping a wrong or bringing about a good; a verified MFQ-2 is an optional supporting input outside the standard assessment battery. These distinctions add interpretive safeguards, not a new method step or validated causal model.
The constraints refined a Personal Challenge. They do not erase Core Tension, Violation, Verb, Vision, Sagrada, Vehicle, or Stepping Stones where those concepts retain distinct functions.
Direction work is recorded in the Operating Manual's "What I choose" answers (§2). Their correspondence with the Four Narrative Constraints was set when the nine questions were developed: How became the Verb answer; Why (stakes) and Personal Challenge became Contribution ("What am I using myself for?"); Build became Sagrada. Challenge / Adversary is no longer required: using oneself for a valued contribution is the durable insight, and a required fight is a less-supported extension. The nine questions replace the Four Narrative Constraints for new work (decided 2026-10-20, LL-ADR-022 amendment; confirmed 2026-11-01, LL-ADR-024). The guidance in the rest of this section still applies to the "What I choose" answers: where it says Build, read Sagrada; Challenge is no longer a required answer.
The "What I choose" answers give the life story its central contribution-bearing direction. “One Build” means that repeated contribution-bearing attempts should accumulate rather than scatter across disconnected containers. It does not mean the person should dedicate 100% of life or time to building. Supporting effort, relationships, family, responsibilities, health, play, rest, curiosity, sleep, and dreams can sustain the person, sustain the direction, or make the life worth choosing without each becoming a stone.
Challenge names what the person is trying to change. Build names what compounds through repeated attempts to change it. A useful next Stepping Stone puts the direction or a strategy bet into consequential contact with reality. It should have a plausible, cost-proportionate path to useful discriminating evidence, durable Build, or both. Step 6 determines what actually accumulated.
Failure of the hoped-for external outcome is not necessarily failure of the stone. A negative result can be valuable when it materially reduces uncertainty or improves the next move. A costly move that produces neither durable value nor useful discriminating signal is a failed stone. Later learning about why it was poorly selected may improve the system, but does not retroactively make the original choice sound.
Legacy compatibility: Focus Line was a Violation → Verb → Vision story compression. Preserve it in already-approved artifacts and use it to interpret those records. Do not generate a new Focus Line, use it as an extraction lens, or restore it as an analytical checksum.
4. Framework inventory by method function
This inventory keeps detailed method material findable even when it does not appear on the concise public page. It is a retrieval list, not a claim that every entry has equal authority, evidence, or maturity. Follow the current source and status for any item before applying it. If no current source reaffirms an ARC-era entry, treat it as legacy rather than promoting it by proximity. Some items serve more than one function; placement shows the primary job.
Inquiry, intended direction, and decision criteria
3Cs Test; 95-Year-Old Self; $95K Question; Anti-Regrets; Anti-Regret Forcing Function; APEX; Clarity; Coherent Decision; Congruence; Contribution; Conformity Waste; G.O.A.T.; Hard Hard Choice; Human Uniqueness Engineering; Impact Hotspots; Million Worlds Test; Patchwork Approach; Personal Challenge; Four Narrative Constraints (legacy); Perpetually Perfect Life; Quest Question; Region Beta; Ripple Effect; True Success.
Model of the person and alignment
Inner Species; Rider; Innate Edge; Core Tension; Stability of Core Type; natural capacities and lower aptitudes; Nutritional Requirements; preferred environments and habitats; threat responses; Ecological Role; Deep Intuition; Embodied Cognition; Life Narrative; Verb; Violation; Vision; Vehicle; Habitat Fit or Mismatch; the Core or Hull; Intrinsic Fuel; Extrinsic Fuel; receiver need; Win-ability; Source of Scatter; Nozzle; Kryptonite; Cognitive Security Blankets; Landon; the Mold; Spin Doctor Brain.
Governing and cross-stage frameworks
Wiring-First; Convergence-Driven; Leverage-Ordered Alignment; Living Blueprint; Engineering or Operational Science; participant ownership; show-your-work reasoning; Conscious Suboptimal Optimization; Optimization Inevitability; Data Fidelity Spectrum; Intuition Calibration; Identity Curation; Identity Nudism; Downstroke; Upstroke; V Approach; Fuel Cycle; Coherence Flywheel; Pragmatic Passion; Radical Moderation.
Evidence inputs and provenance
Life record; career and biographical chapters; achievements and breakdowns; interviews and transcripts; structured assessments; outside feedback; public research; client corrections; logs and reviews; prediction-outcome pairs; Career Evidence Table; source tiers; confidence labels; contamination flags; neutral chronology; distinction between participant language and Decoder interpretation.
Life scenes are evidence inputs, not self-interpreting conclusions. Examine a scene more closely only when it carries a load-bearing claim about the person's recurring pattern, its origin, contribution, or direction. Once a pattern is supported across the wider record, participant-facing artifacts may recompress representative or symbolic scenes into a simpler narrative the person can own and use. Narrative emphasis must not silently turn emotional salience into evidence strength or invent causality the record does not support.
Current structured inputs include BFAS, PVQ-RR, CEO of Humanity, the X-Ray form, career-construction questions, and selected prior assessments when they add useful evidence. Assessments are inputs, not products.
The governing client-readable intake route is Innate Edge Discovery/Innate Edge Clues.md. Innate Edge Discovery/Legant LLM Evidence Extraction Prompt.md is an optional evidence-input tool used only when assigned; its output is provisional source material, not a Decode, Operating Manual, or identity verdict. The native interview-question Google Doc is a convenience copy, not a competing current source. Submitted responses, AI-conversation extracts, and third-party contact details are private client data, not part of this public library.
Analysis and quality control
Unified Analytical Methodology; Structural Reader; Self-Model Analyst; Shadow Analyst; Convergence Synthesizer; Mirror / Crack / Reframe; MCRO; Forced Perspective; Nozzle Framework; Identity Nozzle; Trait Nozzle; Jurisdiction Check; Positive Inverse; Sharper-or-Smaller Test; Nozzle-versus-Toxin check; Multiverse Stress Test; Tale of the Tape; Steelmanning Constraint; Valid Opposite Test; S-I-B-M-O Claim Pressure Test; Brain ROI Recalibration; LLM-interface contamination checks.
PQRS is archived. Its existence is preserved for historical interpretation; it is not a current default diagnostic.
Legible representations
Boundary Line; Archetype and Opposite Archetype; Innate Edge or wiring snapshot; Core Wiring X-Ray; Operating Manual; Field Guide; team-facing Playing Card; positioning analysis; Positioning Prototype; Microscript Bank; AI-use appendix; Four Narrative Constraints (legacy).
Focus Line remains in this category only as a legacy representation.
Navigation, intervention, and learning
Systematic Brilliance; Mission Control or Dashboard; Debugging Framework; Corporate Ladder of Your Life; Working On versus Working In; Compass; Stepping Stone Approach; 5C Stepping Stone; Treasure Hunter; Pumps and Leaks; Trifecta Concept; Extrinsic Bridge; Barbell Life Strategy; Pre-tirement Floor; Moonshot; Role Shaping; Enjoyment Switch; Adventure Relish; Prostalgia; Self-Brainwashing; Principle for Invention.
Explanatory metaphors
Inner Species and Rider; Spaceship; Sagrada; Landon or the Suck; Gravitational Pull of the Mold; Mission Control; Fuel and Engine; Treasure Hunter; Corporate Ladder.
Metaphors explain functions. They do not create a parallel method architecture.
5. Applied protocols and artifacts
Innate Edge is the first applied protocol and testbed of the Legant Method. Applications vary with the evidence, reader, and situation. Each one follows the same source and evidence disciplines.
| Application or artifact | Method job | Reader boundary |
|---|---|---|
| X-Ray / initial wiring snapshot | Form a bounded early model from limited evidence and expose uncertainty. | Participant-readable; not a final identity verdict. |
| Decode / discovery work | Converge richer evidence into a defensible working model. | Participant-readable synthesis backed by source trace. |
| Operating Manual | The central client artifact: nine questions covering how the person is built and what they choose (§2). Make the model and direction understandable, challengeable, and usable by the person. | Client-owned. |
| Four Narrative Constraints artifact (legacy) | Turn a working model into testable direction components with ownership and revision conditions visible. Replaced for new work by the Operating Manual's "What I choose" answers (2026-10-20; confirmed 2026-11-01). Existing artifacts keep it. | Client-owned working direction artifact; not a destiny statement. |
| Positioning Report | Translate the person's edge into external relevance, category, receiver, and language. | Client-owned market-facing application. |
| Navigation letter | Apply the model to a live context or decision without changing canon by implication. | Client-readable working application. |
| Field Guide / Playing Card | Translate an individual's manual for collaborators or a team. | Shared only with the person's consent and proper context. |
| Collective application | Combine individual legibility with relationship, role, and team-system analysis. | Does not merge the individual Operating Manual and team-facing artifact. |
| AI-assisted navigation | Give a client-owned agent an inspectable substrate for advisory use. | The person retains ownership; the model remains revisable. |
Operational production instructions and skills are not part of this reference. They implement these artifacts and must name the current methodology source they follow.
6. Evidence status
The method is developed enough to inspect and use. Its evidence is strongest at recognition and weakest at lasting external effect.
Addressable central claims
These IDs exist so readers can challenge a specific proposition without treating the whole method as one claim. “Current” describes method authority, not proof.
| Claim ID | Proposition | Current status | Basis and boundary | What would revise it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LM-01 | A person's nature contains recurring patterns stable enough to model and use. | Working premise; partly supported | Cross-chapter recurrence and established trait research make limited stability plausible. The method does not claim immutability or a single fixed type. | Longitudinal cases in which the purported pattern does not predict better than context, role, or retrospective narration. |
| LM-02 | Converging several evidence streams can produce a more useful person-model than leaving assessments, biography, self-report, and outside observation separate. | Observed qualitatively | Integrated models have produced specific recognition and corrections. Comparative accuracy and incremental value have not been measured. | Comparisons showing that simpler single-source approaches perform as well or better, or that convergence mainly adds persuasive coherence. |
| LM-03 | A participant-owned Operating Manual can improve self-understanding and decision use. | Early evidence | Participants have recognized and used models in some live decisions. Independent, durable use is weakly tracked. The nine-question format (LL-ADR-022) has one case so far, the method owner's own (live since 2026-10-09), which is not independent. | Prospective use showing low retention, repeated misapplication, or no advantage over ordinary notes and reflection; or participants who cannot answer or own the nine questions, especially the "What I choose" half. |
| LM-04 | The Four Narrative Constraints can shape a direction that is more usable than a compressed Focus Line. | Retired with the framework (2026-11-01, LL-ADR-024); usability of the "What I choose" answers is tested under LM-03 | The four-part form exposes missing layers and disagreements; Direction/Four Narrative Constraints.md records the framework-specific claims and evidence boundary. | Prospective comparisons showing poorer recall, ownership, decision signal, or action quality than a simpler alternative. |
| LM-05 | A bounded Stepping Stone can generate evidence that improves the working model, direction, strategy, or next move; some stones also leave durable value. | Plausible and observed in cases | Action can reveal fit, friction, demand, and unpredicted effects. Compounding is assessed after contact, not guaranteed by the label. A short experiment cannot prove a decades-long life story, and post-hoc learning does not by itself justify a costly low-signal move. | Repeated cases where named tests do not discriminate among model, direction, vehicle, route, or execution explanations; or where the information and durable value produced do not justify their cost against feasible alternatives. |
| LM-06 | Well-chosen constraints can reduce avoidable scatter and concentrate finite energy. | Framework-level hypothesis | The Nozzle and direction frameworks make this testable in bounded domains. Durable causal effects are unproven. | Prospective cases where narrowing predictably reduces useful exploration or where the proposed constraints do not improve energy allocation. |
| LM-07 | Better alignment allows more finite energy to reach valued accomplishment and thereby increases fulfillment. | Central unproven hypothesis | The causal chain is logically stated and partly consistent with adjacent research; the Legant Method has not demonstrated the relationship. | Evidence of no relationship, important countervailing harms, or a better causal model that explains outcomes without the alignment construct. |
| LM-08 | The method produces durable contribution or fulfillment beyond recognition and persuasive explanation. | Unproven | Current cases and Chris's own record are not independent outcome validation. | Independent longitudinal evidence may strengthen, narrow, or reject the claim. |
Framework-specific sources may define narrower IDs and revision conditions. Reviews should cite the most specific available ID.
Evidence layers
| Evidence layer | Current status | Boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Organized method and artifacts | Exists | An organized corpus makes the method inspectable; it does not validate its claims. |
| Model recognition | Observed qualitatively | Documented cases include people recognizing models as specific to them; model validity remains open. |
| Decision use | Early evidence | Some models have informed live decisions and shared language; effects have not been tracked systematically. |
| Independent use | Weak | There is much less evidence that people keep applying the model without continued interpretation. |
| External effect | Unproven | The method has not shown that alignment reliably produces durable contribution or fulfillment. |
The research frontier includes model validity, ownership, attribution, durability, transfer across people and settings, and measurement across a life without misleading short-term proxies.
Chris's own record illustrates the six steps, but the architecture emerged partly from that record. It shows how the method works; it is not independent proof that the method causes its intended outcomes.
7. Source lineage and compatibility
| Source | Current role |
|---|---|
| Published Legant Method page | Downstream public presentation; discrepancies return to the internal method owner. |
| This reference | Canonical method entry and architecture; links to scoped detailed owners. |
| Supporting architecture detail | Full six-step and five-alignment explanations, with evidence limits and open questions. |
| Direction/Four Narrative Constraints.md | Legacy direction framework, replaced for new work by the Operating Manual's "What I choose" answers (2026-11-01). Interprets artifacts made with it; its reasons-for-pursuit and ownership check still applies until a successor home is decided. |
| Current client-readable framework and protocol documents | Governing definitions for the scopes they explicitly name. |
| Accepted Legant decision records | Later explicit changes to name, authority, boundaries, or architecture. |
ARC Methodology.docx |
Public compatibility notice at the historical filename. The complete legacy source is private and recoverable through the frozen release; it is not current canon. |
| Frozen ARC release, 2026-07-29 | Recovery, comparison, historical interpretation, and rollback. |
| Historical client artifacts | Records of what a client actually received. Preserve their vocabulary until individually superseded. |
Major intellectual foundations include Donella Meadows for leverage order and systems intervention; Jonathan Haidt for the Elephant/Rider adaptation; career-construction and narrative traditions; values research; and positioning frameworks. The Legant Method combines and adapts these with its own source-traced models, artifacts, and applied practices. A source credit does not imply that the source endorses the method.
8. Change rule
A change to current method architecture must be accepted explicitly, incorporated in this reference and affected detailed owners, and traced in a dated decision record. Public presentations are then refreshed from those sources, with any lag recorded. The decision record preserves what changed, why and when; routine use should not require replaying the change history. A disagreement between the entry and a detailed owner must be resolved explicitly, not silently blended. A detailed framework change must update its client-readable governing source and this reference. Operational skill drift is repaired in the skill; it does not silently redefine the method.
External review routes through REVIEW_GUIDE.md. A challenge can remain open without becoming canon; an accepted change must be traceable in the governing source and CHANGELOG.md.
When a published essay materially explains a method concept in Chris's own words, add it to Related Writing through the same traced update route. The link improves reader access; publication alone does not make the essay methodology canon or validation evidence.
Retirements preserve the prior state in the frozen release, dated decision trail, or artifact-local history. New canon is created through traceable supersession, not deletion or global replacement.
9. Related writing
These published essays explain or explore parts of the method in Chris's own voice. They are reader routes, not methodology authority or validation evidence. When an essay uses earlier ARC language, the current definitions and boundaries in this reference govern.
| Concept or method function | Published essay | Reader role |
|---|---|---|
| Alignment and top-down leverage | Resign and Align | Explanation of why higher-leverage alignment comes before lower-level optimization. |
| Inner Species and recurring nature | Forget Infinite Potential. Find Your Inner Species. | Explanation of the stable-pattern premise behind the person model. |
| 95-Year-Old Self, Million Worlds, and the whole-life standard | The GOAT Life | Explanation of the long-horizon comparison used to evaluate possible lives. |
| Sagrada, Build, and accumulation | Build Your Sagrada | Exploratory articulation of work that compounds stone by stone; it uses legacy ARC language. |
| Personal Challenge, chosen difficulty, and contribution | Recruiting for a Hard Life | Chris's articulation of choosing a hard quest fitted to the person rather than an impressive borrowed challenge. |
| Stepping Stones and action-generated evidence | Forget Master Plans. Follow Stepping Stones. | Explanation of bounded action as a way to generate evidence rather than predict the entire path. |
| Anti-Regrets and Time alignment | Don't Minimize Regrets. Maximize Your Anti-Regrets. | Earlier exploratory thinking about choices that become more valuable over time. |