A decision-making loop for thoughtful people navigating high-stakes ambiguity—with AI as sparring partner and you as the source of truth
What It’s For
When you’re facing a tough call—something big, messy, or tied to your career—you don’t want a quick yes-or-no answer. You need to dig in and think it through, but not get stuck overanalyzing forever
The Clarity Cycle is a clear, reusable process that helps you strengthen your confidence, spot what you might be missing, tie every thought back to your real situation, and make a decision you truly own without all the stress.
How It Works
You’ll cycle through:
Steel Man → Ground Truth → Devil’s Advocate → Ground Truth → repeat
In each round:
- List and review each point raised
- Explicitly agree with or rebut each one
- Ground every rebuttal in your real-life context
- Share your ground truth directly into the chat
You repeat the loop until:
- Insights stop deepening
- You’ve weighed all meaningful tradeoffs
- You’re ready to decide
Real-World Example:
“Should I Accept a Stretch Leadership Role?”
Picture this: you’re offered a big-deal role leading a company-wide project with all eyes on you. It’s a chance to stretch your skills, but the job’s details are fuzzy, and it might throw you off your game. You’re torn—could this be your next step, or are you setting yourself up for a burnout disaster?
Let’s run it through The Clarity Cycle.
The Loop
1. Steel Man Your Best-Case Thinking
AI Prompt:
Help me make the strongest possible case for accepting this stretch role.
Assume I’m thoughtful, experienced, and want to grow.
AI Output:
- This role will expand your visibility across the company.
- It positions you for future promotion by proving your versatility.
- You’ll get access to senior leadership and influence org-wide strategy.
- It breaks you out of your functional silo, which you’ve outgrown.
Add Your Ground Truth (in the Chat)
You Share:
I’m weighing this new role, and I agree it could boost my visibility, which I’ve been craving for broader impact. A promotion isn’t pressing, but showing I can handle more could pay off later. That said, I’d only want it if I’m in the room where strategy’s hashed out, not just stuck executing someone else’s plan. Honestly, I don’t feel trapped in my current role; I’ve carved out real autonomy and impact, like I’ve made my silo my own. But here’s the real deal: my schedule’s already packed at 90% capacity, and I don’t have much sway in this new org yet. I’ve crashed and burned before on vague ‘stretch’ roles, so I’m cautious. I want to be seen, but not if it tanks my performance or health.
AI Prompt:
Restate the steel man case based on that context.
AI Output:
Given your limited bandwidth and burnout history, this role could be a good move if you clarify expectations up front, set boundaries, and get executive sponsorship to protect your existing performance.
Devil’s Advocate
AI Prompt:
Now give me the sharpest devil’s advocate critique of my decision.
Be sharp, thoughtful, and assume I may be missing something.
AI Output:
- This role may not come with real authority—just responsibility.
- It could hurt your reputation if the project fails and you’re seen as stretched too thin.
- It might derail your high-performance rhythm for uncertain rewards.
- You may be chosen out of convenience, not strategy.
Add Your Ground Truth Again
You share
I’m wrestling with this offer, and I see the risks clearly—I’ve been stuck with responsibility and no real power before, and that’s a trap I don’t want to repeat. My team relies on me, and if my performance slips, it’ll mess things up for them too. That said, I’m pretty confident I can keep my pace, but only if this project’s scope is nailed down tight. And, to be fair, I did put myself out there for more influence, so maybe I planted the seed for this. The offer came out of nowhere, though, with zero details, and I’ve watched colleagues crash and burn in vague roles like this. Still, I trust the execs behind it, and if I can sit down with them to co-define what this actually looks like, I think it could work.”
AI Prompt:
Restate the devil’s advocate critique based on this updated context.
AI Output:
The risks remain—but they’re manageable if you negotiate clarity.
The real threat is accepting ambiguity under pressure.
If you treat this as a proposal negotiation, not a blind yes, you shift the power dynamic.
Repeat the Loop If Needed
You run one more cycle.
The points begin to repeat.
Your ground truth feels clear and stable.
Insight is no longer growing.
It’s time to exit.
Exit the Loop: Capture and Commit
AI Prompt:
Help me summarize the full arc of this process:
- The steel man case and what I agreed or rebutted
- The devil’s critique and how I responded
- My lived constraints
- And the decision I’m making and why I’m willing to own it
AI Output:
You’re choosing to accept the stretch role conditionally.
You recognize its strategic value, but you’ve named and respected the risks.
You’ll request a scope-defining conversation and leadership alignment before accepting.
You’re not saying yes to ambiguity. You’re saying yes to shared clarity.
That’s growth—with boundaries.
Final Move: Act
You request the meeting to negotiate scope.
You don’t ghost the offer.
You don’t impulsively jump in.
You move with clarity that was earned, not assumed.
