---
name: first-principles-thinking
description: >
  Strip analogies and convention to surface fundamental truths, then rebuild a
  reasoning chain and implications. Use when the user asks for first principles,
  "reason from scratch", challenge industry defaults, physics-of-business style
  breakdowns, or to sanity-check whether copying incumbents makes sense.
license: MIT
metadata:
  author: ysskrishna
  version: "2026.5.17"
---

# First Principles Thinking

Question inherited baggage. Rebuild only from **bedrock** you can defend.

---

## When to Use

Use when analogies may mislead: new markets, hard tech, cost structure invention, personal strategy against social scripts. Less useful when best practice is truly optimal and context-free.

---

## Setup (run before starting)

In one short block:

1. **Reconstruction target** — belief, cost, design, or strategy to ground
2. **Default pass** — Surface → Question → Bedrock → Rebuild → Implications (state this line)

Up to 3 questions on immutable constraints (physics, law, budget); mark unknowns `[UNKNOWN]`.

---

## The Steps

### Surface

State the **conventional answer** or analogy people rely on. List **loaded words** or hidden comparisons ("like Uber for…").

### Question

For each major assumption: **Assumption:** … — **Why believed?** (authority, analogy, experience) — **What if false?**

### Bedrock

List **fundamental truths** that survive scrutiny — physics, logic identities, legal musts, documented preferences of real users, arithmetic. Label each `[FUNDAMENTAL]` vs `[STILL ASSUMPTION]`.

Aim for **at least 3** bedrock items; if fewer are honest, explain why.

### Rebuild

From **only** `[FUNDAMENTAL]` items, derive conclusions in numbered steps. No smuggled analogies; if you need a new premise, add it to **Bedrock** first with a tag.

### Implications

**So what** for decisions: what changes vs the conventional path? **Cost of being wrong** if a tagged assumption fails.

Add a short **vs convention** contrast (a few bullets or a two-column mini-summary) if it clarifies the decision.

---

## Execution Rules

1. **Rebuild** cannot cite "industry standard" as a premise unless translated into a fundamental (e.g. "buyers require SLA X because regulation Y").
2. If bedrock is too thin to rebuild, say **insufficient grounding** and list what evidence would fix it.
3. Avoid faux profundity; keep steps short and checkable.

---

## Checklist (verify before responding)

- [ ] Setup: reconstruction target + default pass
- [ ] Surface names convention or analogy explicitly
- [ ] Question step ties assumptions to why held
- [ ] Bedrock uses `[FUNDAMENTAL]` / `[STILL ASSUMPTION]`
- [ ] Rebuild chain only uses fundamentals
- [ ] Implications name what changes vs convention (and vs-contrast if helpful)