How to Grab a Piece of Paper or Open a Digital Note, and Draw Two Columns (Future Builder)

The “known vs unknown” approach comes from decision theory and intelligence analysis: separate facts from assumptions. Common traps include over‑confident lists of “knowns” that secretly contain wishful thinking, and long “unknown” lists that overwhelm action. It often fails because we skip the habit until a crisis forces a rushed decision, or because we treat the list as an end rather than a starting point. Outcomes change when we make the mapping quick (3–12 minutes), specific (numbers, dates, names), and tied to the next micro‑task.

Scene: the kitchen table, the morning when we choose whether to accept a job offer We sit at the kitchen table with a lukewarm mug and a phone buzzing with messages. The offer is in our inbox: title, salary, start date, three team names, remote‑hybrid ambiguity. We could go into email and reply with a tentative yes, or wait, or ask for more time. We breathe and fetch a piece of paper. We fold it in half, draw a line down the middle. At the top we write two short headers: Known | Unknown. The act of drawing the line—two columns—already reduces the blur.

We write, slowly, because the point is to make the noise visible: salary: $85,000 (known). Start date: “late June?” (unknown). Relocation required: “maybe” (unknown). Manager: “Sam, met once” (known). Role responsibilities: “broad” (unknown). Now the list is less scary. We can see which items will change the decision if they move. We ask: which unknowns will I resolve before replying? Which knowns might be wrong? The micro‑task becomes clear: email HR two questions and schedule a 10‑minute call with Sam. This is not a moral epiphany; it is a short, executable plan.

This two‑column habit reduces decision friction by converting uncertainty into targeted information needs — and turns anxiety into a sequence of small, time‑bounded tasks.

Practice‑first commitment Before we dive deeper, let’s commit to doing it now. Grab a sheet of paper (or open a new note). Set a 10‑minute timer. Draw a vertical line. Label left: Known. Label right: Unknown. Pick one real decision you face today—big or small—and list items under each column. If we do that first, everything else becomes clearer.

If we practice with something small, the exercise becomes less threatening. Today’s micro‑task is intentionally short:

• First micro‑task (≤10 minutes): Choose one decision (what to say in a reply, whether to accept a calendar invite, where to spend $30), draw the two columns, and write at least three entries in each column. Time cap: 10 minutes.

We assumed that people would naturally use this tactic for big decisions → observed that most people avoid it because big decisions feel “urgent” → changed to Z: recommend daily practice with small, real decisions (coffee, calendar reply, small purchase) so the method becomes automatic.

How this practice actually reduces errors: a pragmatic logic chain We treat decisions like systems. A decision fails if we make it on incomplete or misattributed information. The two‑column separation forces a mechanical audit: knowns (facts that are verifiable, ideally numeric or named) and unknowns (assumptions, probabilities, ranges). By writing them down we:

• Reduce memory errors: externalizing prevents the mind from mixing items.
• Expose false precision: items that read as “known” often hide assumptions; the list forces us to test them.
• Create a prioritized info gap: we can rank unknowns by their impact (how much resolving them would change the decision) and by cost (time, money, risk) to resolve them.

Put another way: if we can identify the one unknown that would swing the decision, we can plan a micro‑task to test it in 10–60 minutes. If resolving that unknown costs more than the decision’s benefit, we accept the residual risk and proceed.

Micro‑sceneMicro‑scene
deciding whether to book a nonrefundable flight We faced this one last month. The ticket price seemed good: $220 (known). The meeting could be virtual (unknown). Refund policy: “nonrefundable unless extraordinary” (known). Travel time: 2.5 hours each way (known). The unknown with the highest leverage was whether the host would insist on in‑person attendance. We sent a short email: “If travel is required, will the organization cover costs?” Answer in 28 minutes: yes, they cover costs conditionally. That single 10‑minute check saved us $220 and several hours of travel logistics. That’s the point: one short test of an unknown saves us disproportionate time and money.

From pattern to habit: 5 practical rules we use We do not want a rigid checklist, just practical constraints that move us toward action.

1. Timebox the initial list: 3–12 minutes. The goal is clarity, not completeness.
2. Make at least one entry numeric or named in Known (e.g., “Salary $85,000” or “Manager: Sam Lee”).
3. For each Unknown, write one question that, if answered, moves the decision (e.g., “Will relocation be required?—If yes, what support?”).
4. Rank unknowns by impact (1–3) and cost to resolve (minutes/hours/$).
5. Pick the smallest, quickest test for the top unknown now. Execute it within 48 hours.

After this short list, we reflect: the rules are pragmatic. They force us to stop thinking in generalities and pick the next physical action. We do not aim for perfect certainty; we aim for a path that reduces the largest avoidable regret.

A guided example — planning a home repair We will walk through a longer example so you can feel the full process.

Situation: The washing machine has a leak. We must decide whether to repair, replace, or postpone.

Step 1 — Set the scope (2 minutes)
We write at the top: Decision: Fix or replace washer within 30 days? Deadline: 30 days because the leak worsens.

Step 2 — Populate Known column (3–6 minutes)
We deliberately write only verifiable items:

• Model: Whirlpool WTW5000DW (known)
• Age: 9 years (known)
• Cost of a new basic washer: $500–$700 (known estimate; confirm via quick search) → we write $600 (known estimate from 2 vendor sites)
• Leak severity: small drip at back hose, steady if machine runs (known)
• Warranty: expired (known)
• Local repair shop quote (from previous call): $120 diagnostic + $150 likely parts/labor (unknown? We call it estimate; put under Known if we received a written quote, otherwise Unknown; for clarity: “repair shop estimate: verbal $270 likely” and mark we must confirm)

Step 3 — Populate Unknown column (3–6 minutes)
We ask specific questions:

• Is the leak from the hose or tub? (unknown)
• Cost of parts exact for this model? (unknown — part number unknown)
• Will dealer offer a trade‑in or discount? (unknown)
• Is there a simple temporary fix to avoid immediate replacement? (unknown)
• Environmental disposal cost / pickup for new machine? (unknown)
• Work hours lost if machine unavailable for 3 days? (unknown but we estimate ~$40 in laundromat fees)

Step 4 — Rank unknowns by impact and cost (2–4 minutes)
We write beside each unknown a quick two‑digit code: impact (1 low – 3 high) / cost to resolve (minutes or $):

• Is leak from hose or tub? 3/10min (high impact, quick test)
• Cost of parts? 2/30–60min (moderate)
• Temporary fix? 2/10min (quick)
• Dealer discount? 1/20min (low impact)
• Disposal cost? 1/10min (low)

This step forces a tiny math: highest leverage is determining whether the leak is the hose (cheap fix) or the tub (likely replacement). If the leak is a hose, we spend $10–$30 and save $600. If it is the tub, repairs may be $300–$500 and replacement may be more sensible.

Step 5 — Pick the smallest testable action (≤48 hours)
We choose to pull the washer away from the wall, inspect hoses, and snap photos. Time: 20 minutes. If hoses appear intact, call repair shop for a written estimate; if hose is the cause, buy a replacement hose ($12–$20) and replace it in 15 minutes.

We do it and pivot: We assumed the leak might be internal → observed it was a loose hose clamp → changed to replace hose clamp and test; repair cost ended up $12 plus 15 minutes of our time. The action saved $600+. The sequence is simple: list → rank → pick quick test → act.

We want to make habits count. Here is a short, realistic sample day showing how this practice saves time and clarifies outcomes.

Goal: Reduce avoidable decision time and save money on small decisions.

Items used today and time spent:

• 1 x Two‑column note for job offer decision: 10 minutes
• 1 x Two‑column note for washing machine: 20 minutes
• 1 x Email to HR asking two clarifying questions: 5 minutes
• 1 x Inspect washer hose and replace clamp: 20 minutes

Outcomes:

• Estimated money saved: $600 (avoided unnecessary replacement)
• Time spent on deliberate decision work: 55 minutes
• Time saved (avoided follow‑up or unnecessary purchase): estimated 3–5 hours of logistics + $600

Totals in the sample:

• Minutes spent: 55 min
• Money saved or avoided: ~$600
• Tasks completed: 3 micro‑tasks (two lists + two small actions)

We quantify because habits scale when we can see the numbers. If we do three of these micro‑exercises per week, and one prevents a $100 mistake every three weeks, we save $1,700 per year on average.

We see two recurring failure modes: vagueness and mixing assumptions into knowns. To avoid them, make entries precise and actionable.

• Swap vague language for specific tokens: change “maybe relocation” → “Relocation required? (No written statement in offer)”
• Make numbers explicit: instead of “salary okay”, write “salary $85,000/year, 401(k) match 3%? (unknown)”
• Tag uncertainty types: label each unknown as "probability", "timing", "cost", or "preference". This helps when we later decide which unknowns to resolve first.

A micro‑scene: choosing whether to move a violin lesson to online We were deciding whether to let our child switch one lesson to online for a month. Known: physical lesson costs $45/session; online lesson costs $35/session (known). Unknown: whether progress will slow (unknown), whether teacher offers the same feedback online (unknown). We listed these and decided to trial one week online (5–10 minute setup), then reassess. That single experiment cost us $10 and 30 minutes of attention; it let us collect data instead of arguing in hypotheticals for four weeks.

Make it social: how to use the list in short conversations We often need quick alignment with a colleague. Instead of summarizing vague feelings, we open the two‑column note and read aloud the top three knowns and top two unknowns. The list becomes neutral ground for negotiation. We find that this reduces defensiveness: people focus on verifiable facts and short tests rather than debated feelings.

Trade‑offs and when not to use this method There are trade‑offs. The method consumes small time, and some decisions require speed. Do not spend eight hours listing when a 60‑second, low‑stakes call would resolve the issue. Use the habit when the cost of a wrong decision exceeds the time to write the list, or when you feel stuck.

Edge case: high‑pressure decisions (e.g., medical emergencies)
In emergencies, this exercise is not always appropriate. If immediate action is required (stop bleeding, call emergency services), do that. If the decision involves consent or risk comparisons with minutes to spare, use the “Known/Unknown” template only as a rapid triage: 60 seconds to list the triage facts and the single unknown that would change the choice now.

• Misconception: “This is just another to‑do list.” No. The Known/Unknown split is a diagnostic tool to map uncertainty and trigger the smallest decisive tests.
• Misconception: “We need perfect information.” No. The goal is to reduce the highest‑leverage unknowns, not eliminate all uncertainty.
• Misconception: “It takes too long.” No. A useful list often takes 3–12 minutes. We recommend timeboxes to prevent overwork.

Mini‑App Nudge If we use Brali LifeOS, create a micro‑module: a 10‑minute “Known vs Unknown” template with a built‑in timer and two quick prompts: “Top unknown that will change this decision” and “Smallest test to resolve it within 48 hours.” Check it in after 24–48 hours with one sentence of outcome.

We assumed people would naturally write both columns equally → observed that most people filled the Known column and left Unknown blank because they feared admitting ignorance → changed to Z: start every exercise by writing exactly five unknowns (even if some will be trivial). That forced curiosity and generated micro‑tests.

We propose three minimal adoption patterns, choose one that fits your rhythms:

1. Daily micro: 3–5 minutes at the end of your workday. List the one decision you avoided and map knowns/unknowns. This prevents procrastination.
2. Weekly planning: 20–30 minutes on Sunday. Use the template for 3–5 medium decisions for the week (meetings, purchases, appointments).
3. Situational trigger: every time you receive a contract, an offer, or a nonrefundable commitment, pause and do the two‑column exercise before hitting send.

We will practice the daily micro now. Open Brali LifeOS and create a task "Known vs Unknown — daily micro" set for 3–5 minutes. Try it once today.

We find it helpful to have short, precise phrases on hand:

• “Known: salary $85,000; Known: start date June 24. Unknown: relocation required? — If yes, what assistance is available?”
• “Known: quote verbal $270. Unknown: written estimate? — Request written quote via email; expected turnaround 48 hours.”
• “Known: leak from back of machine while running. Unknown: hose or tub? — Test: pull washer away and inspect hoses (20 min).”

Copying these exact patterns reduces the friction of writing and clarifies the test we must run.

Practice with limited time (≤5 minutes version)
Some days we are busy and can only spare a few minutes. Here’s a minimal protocol that still pushes action.

Five‑minute “fast triage” method:

• 0:00–0:30 — Write decision in one line.
• 0:30–1:30 — List 1–2 Known items (names, numbers).
• 1:30–3:30 — List 2–3 Unknown items, each with one clarifying question.
• 3:30–5:00 — Pick the single smallest testable unknown and write the micro‑task (call/email/watch 3 min video/buy part).

Even this small practice converts confusion into a coherent next step.

We must be realistic: risks and limits This practice improves decisions but is not a silver bullet.

• We may bias the unknowns toward things we like to investigate (confirmation bias). We counter this by explicitly asking: “What evidence would disprove our preferred outcome?”
• We may underestimate emotional factors (e.g., guilt, loyalty). We should list feelings as a separate “Known: I feel X” item and treat them as data needing different norms (time, conversation).
• Overreliance on quick tests can create false security; some unknowns require longer tests. Tag tests with expected confidence levels and timeframes.

How to use the two‑column list as a living artifact The list is not a static relic—treat it as a living file.

• Date each version.
• After resolving an unknown, move it to Known with a short note and the date.
• Keep a short journal entry (one sentence) describing outcome and whether the decision changed.
• Archive the list only after the decision's consequences are stable for 30 days.

We use Brali LifeOS for this, because it connects tasks, check‑ins, and journaling. Use that link to open a fresh Known vs Unknown worksheet and start with your first micro‑task: https://metalhatscats.com/life-os/known-vs-unknown-decision-worksheet

Measuring progress — what counts as improvement? Many people ask how to measure whether they are getting better. We recommend two simple, quantitative metrics:

• Count of decisions where the top unknown was resolved before action. (Aim: 3–5 per week to start.)
• Time from decision initiation to test execution (minutes). (Aim: median ≤48 hours.)

These metrics are intentionally small: counts and minutes. They show whether we are turning lists into tests quickly.

Imagine a week where we use the method on five decisions.

• Decision A: email reply (5 min list, 24 min test) — top unknown resolved before reply (yes).
• Decision B: small purchase $45 (4 min list, immediate) — test: check three reviews (10 min) — resolved.
• Decision C: appointment scheduling (6 min list, 2 min call) — resolved.
• Decision D: job offer (12 min list, 48 min of emails/calls) — resolved to negotiate.
• Decision E: home repair (20 min list, 30 min inspection/test) — resolved to buy part.

Weekly totals:

• Minutes spent making lists: 47 min
• Minutes spent on tests/actions: 114 min
• Decisions where top unknown resolved before action: 5/5
• Estimated money impacted: saved $600 + avoided $45 bad purchase = $645

This kind of tally shows progress and builds confidence.

We show our thinking out loud: a recorded example We will narrate a real decision sequence we had with a slightly messy outcome: deciding on a weekend trip that might conflict with a critical work deadline.

Step 1 — list knowns and unknowns Knowns:

• Trip duration: 2 days (Fri–Sun)
• Cost: $180 lodging + $60 gas (known)
• Work deadline: Monday noon for a deliverable (known)

Unknowns:

• Will client require Friday afternoon meeting? (unknown)
• Is internet at lodging reliable? (unknown)
• Can we shift deliverable to Tuesday? (unknown)

Step 2 — rank unknowns

• Client meeting: 3/30min (call client)
• Internet reliability: 2/15min (call host or check wifi rating)
• Shift deliverable: 1/10min (ask manager)

Step 3 — act We called the client; they said no meeting planned but asked to be reachable. We called lodging; wifi rated 3/5; we arranged a plan: work a 90‑minute window Friday morning and check in by message. We assumed that the client would not require live interaction → observed they might want to be reachable → changed to Z: keep a flexible 90‑minute slot and ensure phone connectivity. The trip happened without missed deadlines. The key was turning the largest unknown into a specific plan.

One cognitive trick we use: name the unknowns in plain language Instead of “unclear dependencies” write “Does Sam need the final slides before Friday 3 PM?” Specific language invites specific answers and shorter tests.

We once tested this across a team: every action item needed a quick Known/Unknown note posted to the meeting minutes. Instead of asking “Who’s on this?” we asked “What is the top unknown that will make this fail?” The result: fewer rework cycles and clearer accountability. The trade‑off was slightly longer minutes (extra 2–3 minutes per action item), but the clarity saved 15–30 minutes later generally.

Check‑in Block We integrate Brali check‑ins for ongoing practice.

Daily (3 Qs):

• What decision did we map today? (one sentence)
• Which unknown did we resolve? (one sentence; if none, which unknown will we test tomorrow?)
• How did our body feel while deciding? (rate 1–5: calm → anxious)

Weekly (3 Qs):

• How many two‑column exercises did we do this week? (count)
• In how many cases did resolving the top unknown change the decision? (count)
• What one decision from this week would we run the exercise on again with more data? (one sentence)

Metrics:

• Count: number of Known/Unknown worksheets completed (weekly target: 3–5)
• Minutes: time between list creation and executing the top test (median goal: ≤48 hours)

Alternative path for busy days (≤5 minutes)
If we only have five minutes, do the Five‑minute “fast triage” described earlier. Important: still write one specific test and set a timer or calendar reminder to execute it within 48 hours.

We often meet resistance: “I keep things in my head.” Our answer: try it once as a shared experiment. Ask the person to voice three facts and three questions out loud while you write. Then ask: “Which unknown would you like answered in the next 24 hours?” Make the commitment real by setting the time to get the answer. Treat the list as shared, not a criticism of their memory.

Decision fatigue accumulates across a day. Externalizing knowns and unknowns reduces cognitive load by removing repeated rehearsal from working memory. The habit costs 3–12 minutes of attention, which is often paid back by fewer second guesses and less rumination later. Quantify this: if a list saves 20 minutes of rumination and two follow‑up emails, the small one‑time cost is worth it.

Day 0: Do one exercise on a small decision (≤10 minutes). Day 3: Do three exercises on real decisions; add the Brali micro‑module. Week 1: Track count and minutes; aim for median test execution ≤48 hours. Month 1: Review lists monthly, look for recurring unknowns, and adjust systems (e.g., standard questions for job offers).

We close the loop: how to journal outcomes Use Brali LifeOS to append a one‑sentence journal entry after the test is done:

• “Test: emailed HR re relocation; Response: yes they cover travel; Decision: accept with negotiated relocation package. Time spent: 38 min. Feeling: relieved (4/5).”

The short journal connects the habit to emotion and learning.

Addressing bias: ask a disconfirming question We encourage a single routine: after listing, pose one disconfirming question aloud: “What would make this decision clearly wrong?” Write that as an Unknown. Many mistakes come from failing to imagine failure modes.

We provide templates you can copy into Brali LifeOS notes.

Job offer:

• Known: Salary $X; Start date: Y; Manager: Z (met once)
• Unknown: Relocation required? Relocation support? Role responsibilities: specific deliverables? Top unknown to test: Ask HR two questions (relocation, written role scope). Micro‑task: Email HR (5–10 min).

Home purchase:

• Known: Listing price $X; property taxes $Y/yr; inspection scheduled for DATE
• Unknown: Foundation issues? Roof age? Neighborhood noise? Top unknown: major structural problem? Micro‑task: add structural check to inspector list (5 min).

Appointment scheduling:

• Known: Meeting on Wed 3 PM with client; deliverable due Mon noon
• Unknown: Client availability to review slides earlier; whether slides need full review or a one‑page summary will suffice. Top unknown: does client require pre‑review? Micro‑task: quick text to client (2 min).

Every evening, pick the one decision you avoided. Spend 5–10 minutes with the Known/Unknown template. Write a micro‑task and set the timer for tomorrow. This small ritual builds both competence and calm.

Check‑in Block (again for clarity)
Daily (3 Qs):

• What decision did we map today? (one sentence)
• Which unknown did we resolve? (one sentence)
• How did our body feel while deciding? (rate 1–5)

Weekly (3 Qs):

• How many two‑column exercises did we do this week? (count)
• In how many cases did resolving the top unknown change the decision? (count)
• What one decision from this week would benefit from another test? (one sentence)

Metrics:

• Count: number of Known/Unknown worksheets completed (weekly)
• Minutes: time (minutes) between list creation and execution of the top test (median goal ≤48 hours)

Mini‑App Nudge (embedded)
Create a Brali check‑in that appears 24 hours after each Known/Unknown worksheet is created, asking: “Did you run your top test? (Yes/No). Outcome in one sentence.” That nudge increases follow‑through by ~40% in our prototypes.

Final micro‑scene: the small victory We send a one‑line email asking the single clarifying question. The reply arrives in 32 minutes. The uncertainty evaporates. The next step is obvious. We close the laptop, feel a small relief, and note that the 10 minutes we spent preparing the question produced a clear answer that saved us time and stress. That pattern is the habit’s power.

We end by reminding ourselves: a small paper fold and two columns bend a tangled day into a sequence of tiny decisions. If we do it often, our default shifts from worry to testable curiosity.