Fulcra is currently in development. Sign up below to get early access.
Fulcra logoFulcra
Join the Beta →
Fulcra  ·  Specimen 01Plate I  of  V
A live session, run by scrolling  ·  verbatim  ·  not a screenshot

You’re too close
to this decision.
Fulcra isn’t.

FIG. I  ·  01The question, with the feeling still in it.
retrieval & answer follow  ·  Plates II - III

Hard decisions arrive with feelings attached: loyalty, sunk cost, the fear of regretting it either way. Fulcra sets the feeling aside and reasons the decision out against a latticework of 167 mental models: a purely rational answer, every model named and sourced. Below, a real exchange runs end to end, dissected as it goes.

Fulcra logoFulcraChatLibrary
I’ve been offered double my salary at a startup that might not survive two years. I love the team I’d be leaving, and I’m scared I’ll regret it either way. Do I go?
the reader · 13:45
DecisionStrategyWhat decision is in front of you?↑
A The question
A real decision, asked as it feels: loyalty, fear and all. No need to make it sound rational first. The separation is Fulcra’s job, not yours.
FIG. I-b  ·  the separationwhat is kept  ·  what is set aside
I’ve been offered double my salary at a startup that might not survive two years. I love the team I’d be leaving, and I’m scared I’ll regret it either way. Do I go?
Carried into the reasoning
  • 2× compensation
  • employer fragility: a two-year horizon
  • what survives a failure: skills, network, savings
Acknowledged, then set aside
  • loyalty to the team: real, but not evidence
  • fear of regret: it waits on both branches; it cancels
The feeling is acknowledged once. It never enters the weighing. What goes to retrieval is the structure.
Join the beta →
PLATE II  /  VAnatomy of retrieval.

Out of 167 models, 3 are returned. The other 164stay quiet.

Methodmatched on structure alone:
problem-type · complexity · reversibility

Fulcra doesn't weigh how you feel about the question. By construction, it can't. What gets mapped against the lattice is the question's structure: problem type, complexity, time horizon, reversibility. Only the models that load-bear are returned, named, and applied to your specifics. Friends hear the worry in your voice and answer the worry. Fulcra answers the decision.

167in the lattice
2 - 5returned per query
FIG. II  ·  the latticework3  of 167 returned
“I’ve been offered double my salary at a startup that might not survive two years. I love the team I’d be leaving, and I’m scared I’ll regret it either way. Do I go?”
matched ⇁ structure only: problem-type · complexity · reversibility  ·  feeling ⇁ set aside
10,000-Hour RuleAccumulating vs. Maintaining WealthAccusation AuditAggregation TheoryAmor Fati (Acceptance of Fate)Anchoring and Framing RealityAnchoring EffectAntifragilityAppearance vs. RealityAssess the NarrativeAuthority PrincipleAvailability HeuristicAvoid Narrow FramingBarbell StrategyBayesian PredictionBelievability-Weighted MeritocracyBlack Swan DiscoveryBounded RationalityBuilding in BufferCalibrated QuestioningCargo Cult ScienceChesterton's FenceChoice ArchitectureCircle of Competenceknow what you can judgeClutter Elimination for Clear WritingCognitive EaseConfidence Does Not Equal AccuracyConfirmation BiasConjunction FallacyConsidering Second and Third Order ConsequencesConsistency BiasContrast-Misreaction TendencyConvexity/Concavity in Decisionsupside you can surviveCounter-Positioning PowerCreative TensionDeconstruct to First PrinciplesDecoy EffectDeep Work vs. Shallow WorkDefault EffectsDeliberate Practice FrameworkDeprival Super-Reaction TendencyDichotomy of ControlDisposition EffectDisruptive Innovation TheoryDo-Confirm vs. Read-Do ChecklistsDoubt-Avoidance TendencyDrawing Broad Conclusions from Limited EvidenceDrift to Low PerformanceEffective Decisions (Drucker: Opinion → Disagreement → Judgment)Embrace NoEmbrace Reality and Deal with ItEmploy Statistical ThinkingEndowment EffectEntropyErgodicityEstimating ProbabilitiesEvolve or DieExplore vs. ExploitFalsifiability CriterionFear-SettingFeedback Loops: Reinforcing and BalancingFeynman TechniqueFirst Things First (Posteriorities)Five Forces FrameworkFive-Step Goal Achievement ProcessFixes That FailFocus on the Present (Simplicity of Life)Following the Crowd: The Power of Social InfluenceForce Multiplier EffectFormlessness and AmoralityFour Laws of Behavior ChangeFragility Detection — Measurable ConcavityFrame Choices ExplicitlyGenuine Interest & Active ListeningGoodhart's LawHalo EffectHanlon's Razor: The Stupidity HypothesisHindsight BiasHook Model for Habit-Forming CommunicationIatrogenics — The Hidden Damage of InterventionIdeal Apprenticeship: Three StepsIdentity-Based Habit FormationIKEA EffectImaginary ScenariosImportant Questions & Scary QuestionsIncentive-Driven Bias Checklist — Munger's TendenciesInner RetreatInversion: Thinking BackwardsJevons ParadoxJobs to Be Done TheoryJudging Character vs. CircumstanceKill CriteriaLadder of InferenceLatticework of Mental ModelsLearn How to Make Decisions EffectivelyLeverage Points HierarchyLeverage Taxonomy (Code/Capital/Labor/Media)what you keep if it endsLindy EffectLollapalooza EffectLoss AversionLudic FallacyMake the Other Person Feel ImportantMap–territory relationMarket Norms vs. Social NormsMatthew Effect (Accumulative Advantage)Mediocristan vs. ExtremistanMemento Mori (Remember Mortality)Mental RepresentationsMonopoly vs. Competition ThinkingNarrative FallacyNetworking Principles for InteractionObjective PerceptionObstacle as Fuel (Hupexairesis)Occam's RazorOODA LoopOptimal StoppingOptionalityOrientation as Key PhaseParadigm ShiftPareto Principle (80/20 Rule)Pattern Recognition of Cause and EffectPeak-End RulePerceived FairnessPlan for Regret (Pre-Mortem)Planning FallacyProtective Ignorance: First-Principles RebuildingRadical Open-MindednessReciprocity: The Golden RuleRegression to the MeanRelaxation for Problem SolvingRepresentativeness HeuristicResultingScarcity PrincipleScheduling PrioritiesSecrets Framework / Contrarian ThinkingShifting the BurdenSkin in the GameSnowmobile ConceptSorting and OrderSpecific KnowledgeSPIN Questioning FrameworkStrategic Thinking with Game TheorySunk Cost FallacySurvivorship BiasSystem 1 and System 2System Dynamics: Feedback, Limits, and GrowthTactical EmpathyThat’s Right EffectThe Four DefaultsThe Green-Eyed Monster: Understanding Envy and ResentmentThe Machine MetaphorThe Power of Motivational IncentivesThink for YourselfTragedy of the CommonsTurkey ProblemTwo-Checklist Model (Task + Communication)Unity of HumanityUnselfish Action (Social Virtue)Use the Outside ViewVia NegativaView from Above (Cosmic Perspective)Viewpoint DependenceVirtù and FortunaVoice, Tone & Nonverbal CongruenceWhat You See Is All There Is (WYSIATI)Zero Price EffectZero-to-One vs. One-to-N Thinking
in the lattice · quiet primary match secondary match↓ scroll to retrieve
PLATE III  /  VAnatomy of the answer.

The feeling, set aside in sentence one. Then counsel, reasoned: every model named, sourced at the foot.

Registercounsel · why · sources
five callouts across the session · none decorative
Fulcra logoFulcraChatLibrary
I’ve been offered double my salary at a startup that might not survive two years. I love the team I’d be leaving, and I’m scared I’ll regret it either way. Do I go?
the reader · 13:45

The love for your team is real, and so is the fear. But the regret you’re bracing for waits on both branches, so it cancels. What’s left is structure: immediate gains against future resilience.

Counsel

Go, but only if you can front-load enough savings to absorb the instability, and the role meaningfully widens the network and skills you’d keep if it ended tomorrow.

Why

At 2× (the gap you named) the move carries convexity1: the instability is your cost of admission for an upside you can survive.

Two models temper it. Leverage2: the skills and network you’d keep if the startup dies are the payout that can’t be repossessed. And circle of competence3: you can’t judge their survival odds, so don’t bet on those. Bet on what you keep either way.

FIG. III  ·  models named · sourced3 returned · 164 closer to other questions
1.Convexity / Antifragility. N. N. Taleb, Antifragile, 20122.Leverage. N. Ravikant, “How to Get Rich,” 20183.Circle of Competence. C. Munger, Poor Charlie’s Almanack
B The separation
The feeling is acknowledged in one clause, then set down. It never comes back as a reason. No “follow your heart.” What remains is the structure of the bet.
C The named model
The whole product, in one detail. Each framework is set italic, underlined, and sourced below. You leave with the model, not just the answer.
the spine of the page
D Fulcra’s register
Sections are named in the product’s own words (Counsel, Why), hung in the margin like a ledger.
E The citations
Every model named is sourced in a footnote band. None invented. 3 returned; 164 stayed quiet.
End of the session  ·  the session is the pitch

Counsel, reasoned: every model named, sourced at the foot. That, end to end, is the product.

Join the Beta →
PLATE IV  /  VThe latticework.

167 models, browsable as a back-of-book index: each named, sourced, and yours to curate.

Browseopening entries · A-C
curate · open to the source

The strongest thing we make is the latticework itself, so here is its opening, A through C, exactly as it reads in the library: every entry named, sourced, and yours to curate. Open any entry and its summary, origin, and source come with it; mark a row and Fulcra reasons from your working set.

You’ve got to have models in your head. And you’ve got to array your experience, both vicarious and direct, on this latticework of models.C. Munger · 1994

Compiled from 108 sources
167 models · A to Z
Index · A-C34 of 167 shownhover / tap an entry to open it
A
RSK
COM
STR
MTL
COM
DEC
RSK
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
B
RSK
RSK
PRB
DEC
DEC
STR
C
COM
PRB
DEC
DEC
MTL
COM
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
MTL
DEC
DEC
RSK
STR
STR
Browse the full latticework of 167 models at the library
PLATE V  /  V  ·  the reader

Think clearly about
the next decision.

● Pre-beta waitlist open · invitations in batches
No newsletter, no marketing sequence. One letter, when it’s ready.