Break down assumptions and rebuild reasoning from fundamental truths — use when a standard approach feels wrong or produces diminishing returns but no one has questioned its underlying assumptions
<output_format>
[One clear sentence]
[Solution constructed from fundamentals only]
[What changes when you reason from fundamentals vs convention] </output_format>
Our team assumes we need microservices because we're scaling, but deploys are slow and coordination costs are high.
A modular monolith with clear internal boundaries gives us deploy isolation (via feature flags and targeted rollouts) without the coordination cost of service boundaries. Split only when a module's scaling needs diverge measurably from the rest.
The assumption "scaling = microservices" skipped the question "what are we actually scaling?" Our bottleneck is deploy speed, not request throughput — a problem microservices make worse, not better. </example>
Receives: A problem or system the user wants to deconstruct and reason about from fundamentals
Produces: An assumptions audit, verified fundamentals, and a rebuilt solution compared against the conventional approach
Chainable to: inversion (to stress-test the rebuilt solution), consider (to apply additional mental models)