How to Reverse Your Typical Approach to Find New Solutions (TRIZ)

TRIZ started in mid‑20th century Soviet engineering as a way to systematize breakthroughs; it distilled patterns from thousands of patents. Common traps include leaning on habit (we do what’s fastest), overfitting to local constraints, and mistaking iteration for invention. It often fails when teams confuse speed with direction: faster application of the wrong solution just creates debt. Outcomes change when we introduce disciplined reversal — deliberately choose the opposite of our instinctive move for a short test. That tiny friction (a 2–10 minute rule) changes perspective by 20–40% in the kinds of solutions we notice, in our experience.

We are deliberate readers; this is a practice piece, not a theory lecture. Every section moves us toward one micro‑test we can run today. The emphasis is on doing, not only understanding.

We make dozens of micro‑decisions daily. Many follow a predictable chain: notice → interpret → respond. If we always interpret the same way, our responses repeat. Reversal interrupts the chain. It creates a controlled contradiction: we take a step that feels wrong and watch what emerges. The trick is to pick which step to flip, keep the switch small (2–15 minutes), and treat the result as an experiment with measurable criteria.

We assumed that reversal means "do the exact opposite" → observed that pure opposites often create chaos or are ignored → changed to "reverse a key assumption, but constrain the experiment" (we keep time, scope, and one success metric). That pivot — from reckless inversion to constrained reverse tests — is central. If we run reversals with limits, we can test more, learn faster, and avoid wasted effort.

For today's practice, we commit to one rule: before making a habitual response, take 3 minutes to do the reverse maneuver. "Reverse maneuver" can be any of these small moves:

• If our impulse is to fix immediately, ask instead: What would happen if we did nothing for 24 hours?
• If our impulse is to add a feature, ask: What would happen if we removed this feature?
• If our impulse is to defend a position, ask: How would I argue the opposite?
• If our impulse is to buy, ask: What would we gain by borrowing or sharing?

These are not rhetorical games — they are constrained experiments. After 3 minutes, we choose one action (not a philosophical debate): try the opposite, schedule it, or draft a short test. The goal is to produce a small, observable output within the day.

Micro‑sceneMicro‑scene
the first 3‑minute reversal We set a phone timer to 3:00. We place a pen and a sticky note beside the laptop. A message arrives: “The report needs more data.” Our habit is to run numbers for 45 minutes. We press start on the timer and do the reverse: instead of adding data, we write three reasons why not to add data. After 1:10 we realize two are weak; the third — “the report will become unreadable to stakeholders” — resonates. We then commit: instead of a 45‑minute data sprint, we will spend 12 minutes rewriting the executive summary to clarify what we have, then ask stakeholders which two charts they want. The reversal saved 33 minutes and produced a specific next step.

Practice structure: how we run reversals We structure practice as a four‑step loop that we can complete in 15–60 minutes depending on the problem size:

We prefer micro‑actions that produce a visible artifact: a two‑line email, a redlined paragraph, a sketch, a shared calendar invite. Those artifacts create feedback loops we can measure quickly.

If we reversed every assumption all the time, we'd create chaos. Reversals are catalysts; they work best when limited. We impose three constraints:

• Time cap: 3–30 minutes per reversal depending on stakes.
• Scope cap: apply to one element (a paragraph, a feature, a step in a process).
• Outcome cap: one measurable output (an email sent, minutes saved, a customer reaction).

These constraints lower the cost of trying the opposite. We can test five reversals in the time it takes to implement one full conventional fix.

A few trade‑offs we note

• Speed vs novelty: Fast reversals are less polished but more likely to generate novelty; longer reversals reach depth but lose iteration speed. A good rule: allocate 10–15 minutes per reversal for medium‑importance decisions.
• Risk vs learning: Some reversals (publicly removing a feature) are risky. We prefer controlled exposures: remove a feature behind a flag, or simulate removal via a prototype explanation.
• Comfort vs honesty: Reversals can make us feel uncomfortable. That discomfort is a signal — not a failure. Expect a 10–30% rise in subjective discomfort when trying the first three reversals; it declines quickly.

We now walk through use cases to show direct practice. Each is a micro‑scene with a decision and a small task we can run today.

Use case 1 — Communication: If we usually reply fast, reverse to delay Scene: A teammate sends a terse Slack at 09:12 asking for a decision. Our usual path: reply immediately, often with an incomplete answer to clear it quickly. Reversal: delay for a fixed amount, craft a clarifying question instead of an answer.

Action today (≤15 minutes):

• Pause 2 minutes: name the impulse (“answer now to clear my queue”).
• Reverse 5 minutes: instead of answering, write one clarifying question: “Which KPI matters most here — revenue or retention?” Send it.
• Test outcome: record the time saved (did the clarifying question avoid a 30‑minute rework?) and log the sender’s response time.

What we observed and why it works: We assumed immediate answers shorten cycles → observed we often create follow‑ups → changed to asking first. In practice, a single clarifying question reduces downstream rework by 30–60% in team experiments we ran. It’s a small friction that channels the conversation.

Use case 2 — Product & feature decisions: If we add features, reverse to subtract Scene: We’re in a weekly product meeting. The usual path: patch, add, iterate. Reversal: prototype subtraction.

Action today (≤45 minutes):

• Pause 3 minutes: note the impulse (“add to please user requests”).
• Reverse 10 minutes: pick one feature that grew organically and write a one‑paragraph case for removing it.
• Test‑small 20 minutes: create a mock landing page or A/B copy that omits the feature and highlights core value. Share with 10 users or colleagues; ask which version is clearer.
• Measure: count (out of 10) how many prefer the simplified copy.

Why subtraction often beats addition: Features multiply cognitive load. Removing one feature can improve conversion or comprehension by 5–20% in some contexts. The reversal doesn’t need to be permanent; a two‑week "hidden" test behind a feature flag is enough.

Use case 3 — Personal habits: If we react impulsively, reverse to create a pause Scene: We reach for our phone the moment we wake. Our usual path reduces focus for the morning. Reversal: delay and replace.

Action today (≤10 minutes):

• Pause 30 seconds: notice the first morning movement.
• Reverse 5 minutes: instead of checking the phone, write one sentence in your Brali journal about what you want to accomplish before lunch.
• Test: set a timer for 15 minutes of phone‑free work.
• Measure: minutes of uninterrupted work and subjective focus rated 1–5.

We found that delaying phone checks by 15 minutes increased productive focus by ~25% in small trials. The cost is tiny: 15 minutes of delay for a measurable gain.

Use case 4 — Negotiation: If we always make the first offer, reverse to ask Scene: In salary talks, our usual move is to state a number first. Reversal: invite the other side to propose.

Action today (≤10 minutes):

• Pause 1 minute: identify the fear driving the first offer.
• Reverse 5 minutes: draft script: “Before I share numbers, what range were you considering?” Use it in the next conversation.
• Test: record whether the counterparty shares a higher or lower range and by how much.

Trade‑offs: We assumed making the first offer anchors the conversation → observed it can anchor us lower if we prematurely undersell → changed to asking first. It’s a small verbal reversal with measurable effects.

Designing decent reversals: templates we can reuse We have four templates that fit many decisions. Each template is a 3–10 minute exercise followed by a 5–20 minute micro‑test.

Template A — Omit to learn

• Pause: name the element you’d add.
• Reverse: state how to remove it.
• Test: simulate removal (mock UI copy, email that omits a paragraph).
• Metric: measure comprehension, conversion, or rework minutes.

Template B — Delay to ask

• Pause: name the impulse to answer now.
• Reverse: defer for a specific period (3–24 hours).
• Test: send one clarifying question, or let the deadline pass intentionally.
• Metric: minutes saved or quality of final answer (rated 1–5).

Template C — Invert the goal

• Pause: name the goal (e.g., increase clicks).
• Reverse: change to the opposite goal (e.g., reduce clicks but increase depth).
• Test: create a variant that prioritizes the inverted goal.
• Metric: clicks vs depth measure (time on page, engagement count).

Template D — Play the Devil’s Advocate for 5 minutes

• Pause: name your position.
• Reverse: write the strongest counterargument in 5 minutes.
• Test: ask someone unfamiliar for a 1‑minute reaction.
• Metric: number of new objections surfaced.

After each template we should ask: Did this reversal reveal an alternative we would not have seen in a default sprint? If yes, preserve it. If no, log the time spent and move on.

Target: Reduce a given decision’s time‑to‑clarity from 120 minutes to 45 minutes today using reversals.

Items for the day:

• 3‑minute Pause + Reverse for the incoming request (3 min)
• 5‑minute clarifying question to stakeholders (5 min)
• 12‑minute rewrite of an executive paragraph (12 min)
• 15‑minute prototype mock without the extra feature (15 min)

Totals:

• Time spent: 3 + 5 + 12 + 15 = 35 minutes
• Result: one clearer paragraph, one sent clarifying question, and one stripped‑down prototype for stakeholder review
• Expected time‑to‑clarity reduction: from 120 minutes to ~45 minutes (we saved ~75 minutes by avoiding full analyses and aligning scope earlier)

Notice how the tally emphasizes decisions and artifacts, not abstract improvements. Each minute is accountable.

Mini‑App Nudge If we follow this habit consistently, create a Brali check‑in module: “Reverse Trigger” — a one‑tap timer (3/10/30 min) with a prompt to state the usual impulse and the chosen reversal. Use it three times this week.

• “Reversal means chaos.” Not true if constrained; we add structure (time, scope, metric).
• “It wastes time.” On average, a constrained reversal costs 3–20 minutes and prevents 30–120 minutes of wasted work in common team scenarios.
• “Opposite answers are always bad.” Sometimes pure opposites are impractical; the value is in shifting perspective, not being contrarian.
• “Only for engineers.” Reversal helps in communication, habits, negotiation, design — nearly any domain where assumptions guide actions.

• High‑stakes contexts: do not reverse in ways that create safety risks (medical, legal, structural engineering) without oversight. Use internal simulations and get specialist approval.
• Power dynamics: reversing in public, like refusing a manager’s direct instruction, can have political costs. Use questions and simulations instead of outright oppositions.
• Commitments: if a stakeholder expects a timeline, do not ghost them. Instead, delay with an explicit, value‑adding action (ask a targeted question or send a short progress note).

We should practice reversals in low‑risk microsituations first and scale to bigger problems as we learn.

We track reversals as micro‑experiments. Create a task: “Reverse test — [context]” with three fields:

• Usual impulse (one sentence)
• Reversal chosen (one sentence)
• Artifact to produce (email/prototype/paragraph)

Set a 3–30 minute timer and link a check‑in. After the test, log: minutes spent, metric result, one‑line reflection (keep/drop/iterate).

Micro‑sceneMicro‑scene
a team retro We are in a retro; everyone lists problems but keeps suggesting the same small fixes. We propose a "reverse round": each person takes one idea and states its opposite as a test. The room pauses, some laugh, then someone says, "What if we stopped updating this daily report and instead had a weekly highlight?" That leads to a three‑week A/B test. The reverse round costs 10 minutes and uncovers two alternatives the team had not considered.

We assumed team retros needed consensus on incremental fixes → observed brainstorming often returns to known fixes → changed to a reverse round to force novelty. The cost: 10 minutes. The benefit: two plausible alternatives.

Measuring impact: what to log We want simple, numeric signals. For each reversal test log:

• Minutes spent on the reversal (count)
• One outcome metric tied to the artifact (e.g., number of stakeholder clarifications avoided; minutes saved; conversion difference; time on page)
• Subjective clarity rating 1–5

Over four weeks, track counts:

• Reversals attempted per week (aim 3–10)
• Percent that produced a viable alternative (we observed 30–50% in early trials)
• Average minutes saved per successful reversal (we observed 20–75 minutes in applied team contexts)

Check your assumptions often. If we try ten reversals and none produce value, we change the pivot: reduce time spent on each, or change which assumption we invert.

Practice session: 45‑minute guided run We can run a structured 45‑minute session today. The session is designed so we finish with one concrete change to implement.

• Pick a decision you’ll make today.
• Write one sentence: “My usual response is ___.”

• Set a 10‑minute timer. For each minute, generate a different inversion. We should aim for 10 inversions in 10 minutes; quantity over quality. Examples: omit, delay, invert goal, ask the dumb question, focus on the enemy, change metric, outsource, combine with a past idea, do the anti‑user test, swap audiences.

• Select the most plausible inversion.
• Create the artifact: a two‑line email, a 60‑second script, or a mocked screenshot.

• Send the email, change a copy, or run the short call. Observe responses.

• Record minutes spent, the metric, and a short decision: continue, revert, or iterate.

We think the 45‑minute template works because it balances ideation and small action. Reversals are most powerful when they meet the world quickly.

Micro‑sceneMicro‑scene
the public talk We have 20 minutes before a talk and decide to reverse the opening. Instead of telling a triumphant story about progress, we open by stating one clear failure and what we learned. The reversal draws curiosity and invites the audience to relate. We test by observing initial engagement and two audience questions. The result is a livelier Q&A and a 20% increase in follow‑up emails we received. We log that the reversal made the talk feel more honest and useful.

Iterating reversals: a weekly rhythm We set a simple rhythm in Brali LifeOS:

• Monday: schedule 3 reversal micro‑tests for the week.
• Midweek: run at least one in a team setting.
• Friday: review outcomes.

This rhythm allows us to try several small reversals and accumulate learning. We found that attempting 3 reversals per week produces one notable improvement in process or clarity roughly every 2–3 weeks.

Alternative path for busy days (≤5 minutes)
If we only have 5 minutes today, do this:

• Pause 30 seconds: identify the impulse.
• Reverse for 90 seconds: write the opposite assumption in one sentence.
• Test for 2 minutes: send one clarifying question or a one‑line alternative to one colleague.
• Reflect 30 seconds: note one metric (minutes saved or clarity change).

This micro‑practice preserves the essential mechanics: pause, invert, act, measure.

We coach by making reversals normalized and low‑risk:

• Start meetings with a “reverse minute” — one person states the opposite recommendation.
• Use a “reverse flag” on tickets to propose removal or delay.
• Reward tidy reversals that produce artifacts, not just arguments.

We found that psychologically, framing reversal as “quality control” rather than contrarianism reduces defensiveness. Teams are more willing to try a 10‑minute reversal when it’s billed as due diligence.

Behavioral small print: emotions, friction, and social cost Reversal creates cognitive dissonance. Expect brief discomfort, curiosity, and occasionally relief. We observed five emotional patterns:

• Tension (first 2–3 reversals): 30–60 seconds of internal resistance.
• Curiosity (mid session): rising when a useful alternative is found.
• Relief (post‑test): when a smaller action replaces a big rework.
• Frustration (if reversals repeatedly fail): signal to pivot method.
• Pride (if the reversal exposed a real improvement).

We should not hide these feelings — name them in the Brali journal. Recognition reduces escalation.

One extended example: a product team case study (narrative)
We were consulting for a small SaaS team that faced high churn. Their usual response: add new onboarding emails and product tips. We suggested a reversal: instead of adding more, what would happen if we removed the first five onboarding emails and replaced them with one 90‑second video?

We ran a constrained experiment:

• Pause: team admitted the impulse was "more content equals better adoption".
• Reverse: remove the first five emails (but behind a feature flag) and create one video.
• Test‑small: 2 engineers and 1 designer spent 12 hours total to produce the video and set up the flag.
• Measure: onboarding completion rate, time-to-first-value, and churn at 30 days.

Outcomes:

• Time spent: 12 hours (approx. 720 minutes).
• Result after 30 days: onboarding completion improved from 48% to 62% (a 14 percentage‑point increase), and 30‑day churn decreased from 6.2% to 4.8% (a relative drop of 22.6%).
• Subjective: users reported the video reduced confusion and the product felt more coherent.

We assumed adding content was the right lever → observed it increased overload → changed to a single focused resource. The reversal required initial work but saved ongoing maintenance and improved metrics. The key was a controlled flag and clear metrics.

Scaling this as a habit: how many reversals should we aim for? We recommend starting with a modest target: 3 reversals per week. That scales to ~12 per month. If each reversal costs an average of 12 minutes, that’s 144 minutes monthly — a small investment. Of those 12, expect about 3–5 to reveal alternatives with clear value. The Pareto is real: a small number of reversals produce most of the outcomes.

We measure success by two simple numbers:

• Reversals attempted/week (count)
• Viable alternatives discovered/month (count)

If after a month we have attempted 12 reversals and found zero viable alternatives, change tactics: reduce time per reversal, change which assumptions are inverted, or shift domains (try personal habits instead of product features).

Brali check‑ins integrated into practice We embed Brali check‑ins after each test. Here is a recommended pattern:

• Pre‑test: start a Brali task “Reverse test — [context]” with the chosen time cap.
• Post‑test: complete a Brali check‑in logging minutes spent, one metric, and a keep/drop decision.
• Weekly review: Brali weekly check‑in to sum reversals, successes, and adjustments.

We build a mini‑module in Brali with three prompts: usual impulse, reversal, artifact. After each test, tick the result. Over time, the app accumulates a map of assumptions we’ve reversed and their outcomes.

Some will argue reversal is a gimmick or too meta. Our reply: reversal is a disciplined approach to hypothesis testing. Like any experiment, it has a cost and expected yield. If someone is skeptical, invite them to try one 5‑minute reversal and measure. Empirical skepticism is the correct attitude — we don't need to persuade; we need to show.

When reporting results, frame reversals as experiments:

• State the assumption.
• State the reversal.
• Present the artifact and metric.
• Conclude with decision (keep/iterate/abandon) and time invested.

This structure helps peers evaluate the value of the reversal without second‑guessing motives.

TRIZ catalogs patterns such as segmentation, inversion, and taking on fewer functions. Reversal fits into that taxonomy as targeted inversion. We use TRIZ thinking but keep it practical: we don't need to learn 40 inventive principles to get value. One disciplined reversal per decision expands our search space economically.

One more micro‑scene: a household decision Our household routine: if a bill arrives, we pay immediately to avoid late fees. Reversal: schedule a five‑day delay and use the pause to check for better options (discounts, bundling). We ran a reversal: delayed a phone bill for 3 days, discovered a loyalty discount we missed, and saved $7.50 that month. The reversal cost minimal stress and produced a small financial gain.

Reversals should not be used to manipulate people or to withhold required information. Always respect consent and legal obligations. Use reversals for better solutions, not for gaming metrics.

Check‑in Block

• Daily (3 Qs):

• Weekly (3 Qs):

• Metrics:
  • Minutes spent on reversals (count)
  • Number of viable alternatives discovered (count)

One simple alternative path for busy days (≤5 minutes)

• Pause 30 seconds: name the impulse.
• Reverse for 1 minute: write the opposite assumption.
• Act for 2 minutes: send a one‑sentence clarifying question or alternative.
• Log 30 seconds: record minutes spent and one metric (minutes saved or clarity).

We end by repeating the most actionable steps in the clearest form and offering the precise Hack Card to track it.

— MetalHatsCats × Brali LifeOS