pick-a-lane git:20260514.d63cd2fA

Immutable. This exact content is served forever at /api/v1/blob/ff8b0ca8954fd597.

---
name: pick-a-lane
description: Diagnoses drafts that tell three half-stories instead of one full story, and rewrites them around the single strongest narrative thread. Implements Konrad's rule 7 and Adam Bryant's "stay in your lane" advice — distinct from concision-drill (which cuts words) because pick-a-lane cuts whole stories. Use when a bio, cold email, op-ed, or pitch reads as a resume regurgitation, when the writer is dumping multiple accomplishments instead of telling one fully, or when a paragraph keeps turning corners. Triggers on "pick a lane," "stay in your lane," "too many stories," "resume dump," "before/after rewrite," "compress the narrative," "feels like a CV."
---

# Pick a lane

Source: Konrad's rule 7 from *Winning Writing*, Adam Bryant's *Corner Office* column (NYT) on what CEOs look for in candidates, and the Gabrielle Scrimshaw card-counter rewrite taught in Kramon's class.

## The premise

Most personal writing fails not because the writer lacks material but because the writer has too much of it and won't choose. Five accomplishments mentioned in 200 words means each one gets 40 words. None lands.

Pick a lane. Tell one story in full. Trust that the reader who wants the rest can find your LinkedIn.

> *"Pick a lane, and stay in it. Don't stray all over the highway by regurgitating your resume. Stay on that story and tell it right."* — Adam Bryant

This is distinct from `concision-drill`. Concision cuts adverbs and throat-clearing. Pick-a-lane cuts whole biographical episodes. They run different surgeries.

## What "all over the highway" looks like

Three failure shapes. All three can fit in one paragraph.

### 1. The career-arc dump
*"I started in management consulting, then went to a Series B startup, then moved to private equity, then co-founded a company, then came to GSB."*

Five jobs in one sentence. The reader learns nothing about any of them. This is what your LinkedIn header is for.

### 2. The skill-collection dump
*"I have led teams of 5–50, built ML systems from scratch, raised capital from top-tier VCs, written code in seven languages, and managed P&Ls of $100M+."*

Five claims, zero evidence for any of them. Reads as bragging because each line is a label without proof.

### 3. The story-soup
*"In high school I won the state debate championship. In college I founded a tutoring nonprofit. At my first job I led a $50M product launch. At my second job I rebuilt the data platform. At Stanford I'm exploring AI agents and writing a Substack."*

Five stories, each two sentences. None of them is told. The reader doesn't know what you actually did or why it mattered.

## What "stay in your lane" looks like

One story. Told fully. With a scene, a tension, a turn, and a take.

The classic teaching example is the Gabrielle Scrimshaw card-counter essay, taught in Kramon's class as a before/after.

### Before (4 paragraphs, multiple stories, no scene)

> *"When I was 10 years old I learned about a place called Harvard. I decided I wanted to study there, even though I didn't speak a word of English and no one in my family had ever attended college. A few years later I emailed every one of over 200 boarding schools in America, asking for a scholarship... After three years I was accepted at Harvard, where I started a card-counting team that exploited gender biases in gambling and wreaked havoc on Vegas casinos for three years... After graduation I joined the private equity team at Bain Capital... While at Bain I became fascinated by consumer behavior and brands, which I further explored during my MBA program at Stanford by co-founding a skincare company..."*

What's wrong: five stories, none with a scene. The reader can't see anything. Each is a fact-list. Average attention duration per story: half a sentence.

### After (one story, fully told)

> *"We won in Vegas. Our game: exploiting biases.*
>
> *We were two scantily clad twentysomethings, drinking and laughing at the gambling tables. The casino operators liked us for more than our looks. They figured we were suckers.*
>
> *In fact, we were 'card counters.' We kept a running tally of all high and low valued cards we saw, so we could overcome the house edge.*
>
> *As a Harvard student I had founded a blackjack team and we developed a card-counting system twice better than any other known system.*
>
> *In the casinos we depended on a combination of three skills: math, multitasking, and acting. Within a couple seconds, I'd update my count, signal it to my partner, read her signaled count, do math on combined counts, recall our strategy table, and make the decision on the hand in front of me. At the same time, I had to act 'normal,' which meant pretending to ignore the cards, laughing, pretending to be drunk, and chatting with the dealers, pit bosses, and fellow players.*
>
> *After three years the casinos finally caught on to us — and today, there is no game surveillance professional in Vegas who believes women cannot be card counters."*

What's right:
- **A scene.** Two women at a table, drinks, laughing, pit bosses thinking they're suckers.
- **A turn.** They're not suckers. They're a research project.
- **A take.** Casinos used to assume women weren't card counters; not anymore.
- **The Harvard line and the boarding-school line are still in the essay** — but they come *after* the Vegas story, as evidence of pattern, not as competing headlines.

The same person. The same facts. One lane. Twice the impact.

## How to pick the lane

Three questions, in order:

### 1. Which story is the most cinematic?
Which one has a date, a place, a moment, a quote, an image, a turn? That's your candidate. If multiple stories have scenes, pick the one with the most surprising turn.

### 2. Which story is most "you"?
Which one shows a quality of mind the reader can't get from your resume? Card counting + Harvard + first-gen immigrant is more "Scrimshaw" than Bain Capital + Stanford MBA, because the first set has friction and the second is the path.

### 3. Which story serves the ask?
If the reader is a VC, the founding story serves. If the reader is a hiring manager for a research role, the dissertation serves. If the reader is anyone, the story that contains the most universal human stakes serves.

If you score a story 5/5 on cinematic + 5/5 on "you" + 5/5 on serves-the-ask, that's your lane. Stay in it.

## How to run the pass

### Pass 1 — Map the stories
Read the draft. Mark every distinct story or accomplishment with a letter:
- A: card counting
- B: founding APAC
- C: Bain Capital
- D: Stanford skincare startup
- E: nonprofit board member

Count: how many As, Bs, Cs do you have? Most over-stuffed bios have 4–6.

### Pass 2 — Score each story
For each, rate 1–5 on:
- **Cinematic** (scene, date, image, quote)
- **You** (shows a quality of mind unique to you)
- **Ask** (serves the recipient's interest)

Total possible: 15. The highest-scoring story is your lane.

### Pass 3 — Promote the lane to the lede
Rewrite the opening so the chosen story is the first 2–3 paragraphs. Open in scene. Don't preamble. Don't "let me tell you about a time when…"

### Pass 4 — Demote everything else
The other stories become one of three things:
- **Evidence-bullets at the bottom** (one sentence each, supporting a thesis)
- **A throwaway line at the end** ("I've also done X, Y, Z, but the card-counting years are the ones that taught me how to think.")
- **Cut entirely** — your LinkedIn handles them.

Most over-stuffed bios end up demoting ~80% of the original word count.

### Pass 5 — Test the unity
Read the rewrite aloud. Does every paragraph belong to the same story or its direct echoes? If a paragraph wanders into a different lane, cut or move it.

## Output format

```
## Story inventory
A. [story 1] — cinematic X/5, you X/5, ask X/5 — total X/15
B. [story 2] — ...
C. ...

## The chosen lane
[Letter] — [why this scored highest]

## Rewrite
[The full draft with the chosen story promoted and others demoted/cut]

## What changed
- Promoted: [story X to the lede]
- Demoted: [stories Y, Z to evidence bullets]
- Cut entirely: [stories whose LinkedIn already covers]
- Word count: original → final

## The opening sentence
[The first 5-10 words of the rewritten draft, alone, so the user can see if it earns its place]
```

## When NOT to use

- **A CV or resume.** Different genre. The structure is multi-lane by definition.
- **A status update or progress report.** Multi-lane is correct.
- **A "year in review" essay.** The form is enumerative.
- **A technical post-mortem.** Each section is a different lane and that's the point.

But: bios, cold emails, "tell me about yourself" interview answers, LinkedIn About sections, intro slides, founding-story essays, Substack personal posts — all should pick a lane.

## The Bryant test

After your rewrite, ask: *"Does the reader want to have a beer with me AND hire me?"*

If yes → ship.
If no → which is missing, the warmth or the competence? (Run `warmth-and-competence` skill.)

## The Konrad rule

> *"Pick a lane and stay in it. The story that's worth telling is worth telling fully."*

A half-told good story is worse than a full-told decent one. The lane is the structure. The structure is the story. Pick it. Stay in it.

## Companion skills

- `yourself-story` — for bio/about-me/tell-me-about-yourself drafts. Often the right skill to run *before* pick-a-lane, because yourself-story helps you generate material and pick-a-lane helps you choose.
- `show-dont-tell` — once the lane is picked, this skill makes the scene cinematic.
- `concision-drill` — for word-level cuts after the structural cut.
- `warmth-and-competence` — the Bryant test in skill form.