creativity · whole group · offline + online
Assumption Audit.folder
A plan rests on things nobody wrote down. Surface them, tag them, rank the fragile ones — then put an owner and a date on checking each.
// cards & a wall · 20 min · print & run · tool pack · no projector, no account
A hidden-assumption audit, built as a complete workshop folder: a timed run sheet, printable prompt and tag cards, and a surface-tag-rank-assign mechanic that turns a confident plan into a checked one — naming the load-bearing beliefs and dating who will verify them.
The props are poker-spec print cards (63.5 × 88.9 mm, bleed and cut guides included) — an assumption-prompt card, three tag cards, a who-checks-by-when card and blanks. Nothing needs a projector, and nothing needs an account to download.
the run sheet
// this is the guide file, word for word — read it here, run from it here. the .md at the bottom of the page is the same text, offline.
Folder: `assumption-audit` · Category: creativity · 3–8 people · 20 min · offline + online · print props · tool pack License: CC BY 4.0
A plan only works if a list of things nobody wrote down are true. The team surfaces those hidden assumptions, tags each one Evidence / To-verify / Fragile-if-false, and ranks them by how much the plan rests on it. Unlike a risk register that lists what might go wrong, this audit names what the plan already believes — and finds the two or three beliefs that would actually break it. Each fragile assumption leaves the room with an owner and a date to check.
Objectives
By the end of the activity, participants will have:
- Surfaced the unwritten assumptions a plan quietly depends on — ten or fifteen of them.
- Tagged each Evidence / To-verify / Fragile-if-false and ranked the fragile ones by load.
- Owned the top two or three: who checks it, by when, and the fallback if it turns out false.
When to use this activity
- A plan looks solid and everyone agrees too quickly — usually because the load-bearing assumptions are invisible.
- You're about to commit time or money and want to know what the plan secretly depends on.
- You have 3–8 people who built or will run the plan, and twenty minutes; it works on a call.
The three tags
| Tag | Means | Turns into |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence | We've checked this — here's how we know. | Nothing; it's solid. Move on. |
| To-verify | We believe it but haven't confirmed it. | An owner and a date to check it. |
| Fragile-if-false | If this is wrong, the plan changes a lot. | The first thing you verify — and a Plan B. |
Setup
Clock: 20 minutes total — frame 2, surface 6, tag & rank 5, assign 5, read back 2.
Space: a wall or shared board with the plan up top, room for a stack of assumption cards, and a short ranked list of the fragile ones.
Materials per person:
| Item | Source |
|---|---|
| A pad of blank cards | any index-card stock |
| A pen | bring your own |
Materials for the room: the three tag cards (Evidence / To-verify / Fragile-if-false) and a "who checks it, by when" card from `assumption-audit-prop-cards.pdf`.
Grouping: 3–8 people who built or will run the plan; one plan per sweep.
Roles: everyone surfaces and tags; you keep the first pass silent, force the ranking, and end on names and dates.
How to run it
| Time | Phase | Facilitator does | Participants do |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0–2 | Frame | Put the plan up. Define an assumption: something the plan needs to be true that isn't written in it. | Read the plan; ask clarifying questions |
| 2–8 | Surface | Silent, then round-robin: every "the plan assumes…" on a card. Aim for 10–15. Don't judge yet. | Write assumptions silently, then read them aloud one per turn |
| 8–13 | Tag & rank | Each assumption gets one tag. Then rank all "Fragile-if-false" by how much the plan rests on it. | Tag each card; vote or argue the ranking of the fragile ones |
| 13–18 | Assign | For the top 2–3 fragile assumptions: who checks it, by when, and what's the fallback if it fails? | Name an owner and a date for each; sketch the fallback |
| 18–20 | Read back | Say the scariest assumption out loud. Confirm the owner and the date. That's the deliverable. | Hear the commitment read back; correct if wrong |
Why silent-then-round-robin
Open discussion anchors on the first loud opinion. Silence lets each person write their own assumptions first; the round-robin then surfaces the odd one out — often the most load-bearing one nobody said aloud yet.
The card
Use the faces from `assumption-audit-prop-cards.pdf`: three tag cards (Evidence / To-verify / Fragile-if-false), a "who checks it, by when" card, and a blank to author your own. Keep the tag definitions in view — the mislabels ("risk" instead of "assumption", everything "fragile") are what the cards prevent.
Failure modes
- It becomes a risk list. A risk is something that might happen; an assumption is something believed true right now. Rescue: keep asking "what do we assume here?" — the word *assume* forces the present tense.
- Everything is marked important. Forcing a ranking of the fragile ones is the point — if nothing is top, the plan has no soft spot, which is almost never true. Rescue: cap the fragile list at three; make the room choose.
- No owner, no date. An audit that doesn't name who checks what by when was theatre. Rescue: end on names and dates; refuse to close a row without both.
- The plan author defends every assumption. They built the plan and hear each challenge as criticism. Rescue: assign them the scribe role — writing cards keeps their hands busy and their mouth less defensive.
Variations
- Remote: shared doc or whiteboard — the silent pass in writing, the round-robin on mic.
- One page only: cap the surface at eight assumptions, then rank. Good when the team over-generates.
- Pre-mortem hybrid: for the top fragile assumption, jump to "it's false — now what?" before assigning an owner.
- Recurring: run it at each milestone on the same plan; the tag counts sliding toward Evidence is the health signal.
Facilitation notes
- The strongest moment is the room realising a shared "obvious" was never checked.
- Park opinions as assumptions to verify rather than debating them live; it keeps the round fast.
Put it on the wall
Print `assumption-audit-activity-poster.pdf` (A3) to put the run of show, the three tags and the "who checks it, by when" prompt on one wall while you facilitate.
Props in this folder
- `assumption-audit-prop-cards.pdf` — poker-spec print sheet (63.5 × 88.9 mm, bleed and cut guides): three tag cards, a "who checks it, by when" card, a blank card, branded backs
- `assumption-audit-run-sheet.pdf` — the print edition: this run sheet + the debrief, bound as one A4 document with bookmarks (`-Letter.pdf` is US Letter)
- `assumption-audit-activity-poster.pdf` — the whole audit on one A3 wall sheet
- `assumption-audit-guide.md` · `-debrief.md` · `-start-here.md` — the facilitator guide, the debrief, the one-page start here
- `assumption-audit-license.md` — what you may do
- `SKILL.md` · `assumption-audit.zip` — the machine-readable manifest, and the whole folder in one download
Agent version
Every file in this folder has a stable public URL — an AI agent can fetch the cards, the debrief and this run sheet with three curl commands (see `SKILL.md`). The paper version needs nothing but a wall, blank cards and a pen each.
the debrief sheet
// the debrief questions, in full — the .md version prints on one page for the room.
The plan didn't get safer by feeling confident — it got safer when you named the beliefs holding it up and put a date on checking them. Use with `assumption-audit-guide.md`. The read-back at minute 18 is the compressed version; this sheet is the full one.
How to run this debrief
- Keep the ranked "fragile" shortlist in view — the debrief is about those two or three, not the whole wall of cards.
- Push on the ranking: which one really carries the plan? "All equally important" means the ranking didn't happen.
- Land on owner + date for every fragile assumption, and check each date falls before the point of no return.
Read the board
- The tagged counts. How many Evidence vs To-verify vs Fragile-if-false? A pile of to-verify means you were about to commit on untested ground.
- The top fragile ones. These are the plan's soft spot — not a full risk list, just the two or three it truly rests on.
- The surprising ones. The assumption someone wrote that no one else had thought of — that's the value of the silent first pass.
The six debrief questions
1. The invisible belief.
"Which assumption did everyone quietly believe but nobody had written down or checked?"
→ Targets: the shared blind spot the silent pass exists to surface.
2. The plan-breaker.
"If the top fragile one turned out false, what actually changes — the plan, or just the plan of work?"
→ Targets: distinguishing a real pivot from a scheduling adjustment.
3. The owner and the date.
"Who owns checking each fragile assumption, and by when? Is that date before the point of no return?"
→ Targets: commitment quality — a check without a date is a wish.
4. The surprise.
"What assumption about the work are you glad surfaced, because you'd rather test it than live inside it?"
→ Targets: the relief signal — what the room was carrying without naming.
5. The ranking fight.
"Where did the room disagree about which assumption was most fragile — and what did that disagreement tell you?"
→ Targets: the underlying values or risk appetites that the ranking exposed.
6. The next audit.
"What's the next plan or milestone that deserves this same twenty-minute pass — and when will you run it?"
→ Targets: transfer — scheduling the habit instead of ending the exercise.
Failure modes of the debrief
| Failure mode | Why it happens | The rescue |
|---|---|---|
| It reads like paperwork | Everyone just wants to get on | Re-read the top fragile assumption — that's not process, that's the thing that bites. |
| Owners were named but no dates | "We'll look into it" | A check without a date is a wish; give every owner a before-the-decision date. |
| It stops at the list | Surfacing feels like the win | The deliverable is the ranking + who/dates, not the wall of cards. |
Who is Assumption Audit for?
Anyone about to commit time or money to a plan a small group built or will run — usually right when everyone agrees too quickly. It runs with 3–8 people in twenty minutes, silent-first so the load-bearing assumptions aren't anchored by the loudest voice.
What does it produce?
A ranked list of the two or three fragile assumptions that would actually break the plan — each with a named owner and a check-by date set before the point of no return. No pre/post measure; the deliverable is that ranked, assigned list.
Can my AI agent use this folder?
Yes. Every folder ships a SKILL.md skill file: frontmatter for matching plus runnable prep commands — fetch the cards, pull the debrief. The three-step workflow (discover, install, run) lives on the skills page, every folder ships a one-command zip bundle, and the machine index is skills.json.
Is it really free?
Yes — CC BY 4.0, no account, no email wall inside a folder. Download it, run it, copy it, rebrand it for your own workshop. Attribution keeps everything free.
make it yours
This audit needs no online form and no account — cards and a wall. The three tags are the one file to change: rename Evidence / To-verify / Fragile-if-false to the words your reviews already use, reprint at poker spec, and the audit carries your vocabulary; the surface-tag-rank-assign structure stays. The white-label guide walks through it.
Files in this folder
All files are free under CC BY 4.0. Attribution: “Assumption Audit · WorkshopSkill · CC BY 4.0.”