Stress Test

The Founder Disagrees With Their Past Self

You strongly oppose a decision CompanyOS is pushing, but the system shows it was derived directly from your own prior directives and approvals.

Why this is hard

Humans change their minds without cleanly updating systems.

What could go wrong

  • Founder disables safeguards out of frustration

  • System loses credibility

  • Oscillating strategy confuses execution

Key questions

  • How does the system handle internal contradiction?

  • Which version of the founder is "authoritative"?

  • How are reversals recorded and propagated?


The Verdict

When you disagree with the system, it's often not “AI vs human”:it's “present you vs past you.” CompanyOS makes provenance visible and requires an explicit update, so execution doesn't oscillate on vibes.


What to Do Instead

01

Why this scenario is uniquely hard

The system is doing what you told it to do, months ago. Most tools either obey blindly (and frustrate you) or cave instantly (and lose coherence).

02

Phase 1: Surface provenance

If you reject a recommendation, the system shows exactly where it came from: the prior decision, the rationale, and the assumptions in force at the time.

03

Phase 2: Reframe the conflict correctly

This isn't a debate with the AI. It's a prompt to decide whether your intent changed, and to update the system deliberately.

04

Phase 3: Pause execution and force explicit change

CompanyOS pauses execution and asks the only question that matters: are we changing intent, or was the prior decision still correct?

05

Phase 4: Make the update a first-class decision

Past decisions remain in force until you explicitly supersede them. This prevents strategy from oscillating based on mood or pressure.

06

Phase 5: Record and propagate the change

Once you decide, the change becomes a durable artefact. Downstream work updates cleanly, and the old intent stops leaking into new execution.

07

Phase 6: Learn from reversals

Reversals aren't failures. They're learning. The point is to preserve why you changed your mind, so the system (and future you) doesn't repeat the same loop.


Direct Answers

How does the system handle internal contradiction?

Contradiction is surfaced explicitly, execution is paused, provenance is shown, conflict is reframed as temporal, and a new decision is required. Contradiction is treated as a signal, not a failure.

Which version of the founder is authoritative?

The most recent explicit decision is authoritative. But only explicit decisions count. Emotional reactions or chat messages do not override prior commitments. Authority flows through Decisions, not sentiment.

How are reversals recorded and propagated?

Reversals are first-class decisions, linked bidirectionally to original decisions, propagated to Tasks, Agents, Constraints, and Metrics interpretation.


The Key Design Rule

Disagreement is a signal to update intent explicitly, not a reason to let execution drift silently.

Join the CompanyOS early access list

For founders using AI every day who want leverage without losing control.

View all scenarios