/em -challenge — Pre-Mortem Plan Analysis
Command: /em:challenge <plan>
Systematically finds weaknesses in any plan before reality does. Not to kill the plan — to make it survive contact with reality.
Most plans fail for predictable reasons. Not bad luck — bad assumptions. Overestimated demand. Underestimated complexity. Dependencies nobody questioned. Timing that made sense in a spreadsheet but not in the real world.
The pre-mortem technique: imagine it's 12 months from now and this plan failed spectacularly. Now work backwards. Why?
That's not pessimism. It's how you build something that doesn't collapse.
Before you can test a plan, you need to surface everything it assumes to be true.
For each section of the plan, ask:
Common assumption categories:
For every assumption extracted, rate it on two dimensions:
Confidence level (how sure are you this is true):
Impact if wrong (what happens if this assumption fails):
The matrix of Low/Unknown confidence × Critical/High impact = your highest-risk assumptions.
Vulnerability = Low confidence + High impact
These are not problems to ignore. They're the bets you're making. The question is: are you making them consciously?
Many plans fail not because any single assumption is wrong, but because multiple assumptions have to be right simultaneously.
Map the chain:
For each critical vulnerability: if this assumption turns out to be wrong at month 3, what do you do?
The less reversible, the more rigorously you need to validate before committing.
Challenge Report: [Plan Name]
CORE ASSUMPTIONS (extracted)
1. [Assumption] — Confidence: [H/M/L/?] — Impact if wrong: [Critical/High/Medium/Low]
2. ...
VULNERABILITY MAP
Critical risks (act before proceeding):
• [#N] [Assumption] — WHY it might be wrong — WHAT breaks if it is
High risks (validate before scaling):
• ...
DEPENDENCY CHAIN
[Assumption A] → depends on → [Assumption B] → which enables → [Assumption C]
Weakest link: [X] — if this breaks, [Y] and [Z] also fail
REVERSIBILITY ASSESSMENT
• Reversible bets: [list]
• Irreversible commitments: [list — treat with extreme care]
KILL SWITCHES
What would have to be true at [30/60/90 days] to continue vs. kill/pivot?
• Continue if: ...
• Kill/pivot if: ...
HARDENING ACTIONS
1. [Specific validation to do before proceeding]
2. [Alternative approach to consider]
3. [Contingency to build into the plan]
These are the ones people skip:
The output of /em:challenge is not permission to stop. It's a vulnerability map. Now you can make
conscious decisions: validate the risky assumptions, hedge the critical ones, or accept the bets
you're making knowingly.
Unknown risks are dangerous. Known risks are manageable.