Perspective Expansion

Method

1. Desired State. State the outcome wanted without embedding one method inside the goal.
2. Assumed Method. Identify what you are treating as mandatory for reaching that state.
3. Representation Check. Ask whether the current model is unnecessarily shrinking the candidate action set.
4. Reframe. Generate alternate valid representations of the same underlying situation.
5. Expanded Action Set. Surface relevant actions that were absent from the first representation.
6. Evaluate. Apply constraints, risk, reversibility, information gain, alignment, Path Expansion, or other decision criteria.
7. Choose. Select from the improved candidate set and act.

Action-space model

Let A(t) be the actions materially available at time t, R(t) the actions currently recognized by the agent, and B(t) the actions the agent psychologically permits themselves to consider.

B(t) ⊆ R(t) ⊆ A(t)

Perspective Expansion intervenes on representation before downstream ranking. If the first represented set is incomplete, improving the ranking algorithm alone cannot recover options that never entered the set.

Outcome versus method

“I need more streams” embeds a specific mechanism inside the problem. “I want evidence that my work is reaching people deeply enough that they engage back with it” describes a broader desired state. Streams can still matter, but they become one mechanism rather than the definition of success itself.

The purpose of the reframe is not optimism. It is to prevent an assumed mechanism from disguising itself as the objective.

Relationship to trajectory analysis

Perspective Expansion: Am I seeing all the actions that are available?

Trajectory analysis: Given the actions I can now see, which one changes the trajectory most usefully?

Perspective Expansion is therefore upstream of action scoring. Path Expansion can then evaluate how strongly each candidate preserves or creates access to desirable future states.

Failure controls

• Do not deny real material constraints.
• Do not treat every imaginable action as feasible.
• Do not endlessly reframe instead of deciding.
• Do not substitute novelty for value.
• Do not erase risk, legality, cost, or consequence.
• Do not assume a new perspective is automatically more accurate.

Evaluation

1. Did the reframe reveal relevant actions absent from the initial representation?
2. Were those actions materially available or plausibly reachable?
3. Did the reframe preserve the original desired state?
4. Did the expanded set improve the downstream decision or useful optionality?
5. Did the method terminate once sufficient decision-relevant expansion was achieved?