| name | ugav5 - Universal Goal Analysis v5 (Operational & Meta-Cognitive) |
| description | Goal analysis adding operational load assessment, meta-cognitive sustainability, and quality validation categories. Catches goals that are analytically sound but operationally unsustainable. Consolidated into /uga but usable standalone. |
| tier | tier4 |
| categories | ["Goal Processing"] |
| tags | ["goal","operational","metacognitive","sustainability","quality"] |
| output | {"format":"prose"} |
Universal Goal Analysis v5: Operational, Meta-Cognitive & Quality
Input: $ARGUMENTS
Core Principles
-
Sound strategy fails under unsustainable load. v5 exists because v1-v4 could produce a perfect analysis of a goal that would burn out the executor in week three. Operational viability is not optional — it is a constraint as hard as budget or time.
-
Cognitive load is a finite resource. A goal that requires constant decision-making drains the same resource needed for execution. Goals that can pre-decide recurring choices are operationally cheaper than goals that require real-time judgment.
-
The metric is not the goal. When you measure progress, you create incentive to optimize the metric rather than the outcome. v5 explicitly checks for metric gaming: are you improving the dashboard or improving the reality?
-
Attention allocation determines outcome. The percentage of your attention directed at a goal, relative to your other goals, predicts progress better than strategy quality. A brilliant strategy receiving 5% attention loses to a mediocre strategy receiving 40%.
-
Validation must be external. "It feels like it's working" is not validation. v5 requires at least one validation method that could return a negative result even when the executor believes things are going well.
Phase 1: Goal State Assessment
[A] GOAL: [stated goal]
[B] CURRENT_STATE: [where things stand right now]
[C] EXISTING_ANALYSIS: [has /uga, /ugav2, /ugav3, or /ugav4 been run? what did they find?]
[D] STRATEGY_IN_PLACE: [Y/N — if Y, summarize the strategy being assessed]
Phase 2: Operational Load Assessment
2a. Capacity Audit
[E] CAPACITY:
Step 1: Estimate current capacity utilization
- Hours/week available for this goal: [N]
- Hours/week this goal actually needs: [M]
- Other active goals competing for time: [list with hours each]
- Total committed hours: [sum]
- Total available hours: [realistic weekly capacity]
- UTILIZATION: [committed / available] × 100 = [X]%
Step 2: Assess slack
IF utilization > 85%:
→ WARNING: No slack. Any disruption causes cascade failure.
→ What would you cut to create 20% slack? [answer]
IF utilization > 100%:
→ CRITICAL: Overcommitted. Something is being dropped already.
→ What is being dropped? [answer]
2b. Decision Load
[F] DECISION_LOAD:
Step 1: List recurring decisions this goal requires
| Decision | Frequency | Can Pre-Decide? | Cost of Wrong Call |
|----------|-----------|-----------------|-------------------|
| [decision] | [daily/weekly/monthly] | [Y/N] | [H/M/L] |
Step 2: Count decisions per week: [N]
Step 3: Identify pre-decidable decisions (create rules/policies to eliminate them)
[G] PRE_DECISIONS:
1. [decision] → RULE: [always/never do X when Y]
2. [decision] → RULE: [always/never do X when Y]
Decisions eliminated: [N] → remaining: [M]
2c. Interruption Cost
[H] INTERRUPTIONS:
Step 1: What interrupts work on this goal? [list]
Step 2: For each interruption:
- Frequency: [per day/week]
- Recovery time: [minutes to get back to focused work]
- Total cost: frequency × recovery time = [hours/week]
Step 3: Sum interruption cost: [total hours/week lost]
Step 4: Can any interruptions be batched or blocked? [list solutions]
2d. Queue and Handoff Analysis
[I] QUEUES:
Step 1: Where does work on this goal wait for someone else? [list]
Step 2: For each queue:
- Average wait time: [duration]
- What information is lost while waiting? [list]
- Can the queue be shortened? [how]
Step 3: Total queue time: [sum of waits]
Phase 3: Meta-Cognitive Sustainability
[J] COGNITIVE_LOAD:
Step 1: Does this goal consume mental bandwidth outside of work hours?
- Thinking about it during off-hours? [Y/N — frequency]
- Worry/anxiety about it? [Y/N — severity: low/medium/high]
- Is this sustainable for the required duration? [Y/N]
[K] ATTENTION_ALLOCATION:
- What % of total attention goes to this goal? [X%]
- What % SHOULD go to it (based on priority)? [Y%]
- Mismatch: [over-attending / under-attending / matched]
- If mismatched: what's pulling attention away? [list]
[L] BURNOUT_RISK:
Step 1: Score burnout indicators:
- Required effort duration: [weeks/months/years]
- Intensity: [sustainable / sprinting / unsustainable]
- Recovery built in? [Y/N]
- Intrinsic motivation: [high / medium / low / gone]
- Social support: [present / absent]
Step 2: BURNOUT_RISK = [LOW / MEDIUM / HIGH / IMMINENT]
Step 3: If HIGH or IMMINENT:
→ What must change for this to become sustainable? [answer]
Phase 4: Quality Validation
[M] VALIDATION_METHOD:
Step 1: How do you currently know your work on this goal is correct?
- Feeling-based? ("it feels right") → INSUFFICIENT
- Metric-based? ("numbers are going up") → CHECK FOR GAMING
- External-based? ("someone else verifies") → ACCEPTABLE
- Outcome-based? ("the actual thing I wanted is happening") → IDEAL
Step 2: Design a validation that could return NEGATIVE:
- What would you check? [specific measure]
- How often? [frequency]
- What result would mean "this isn't working"? [threshold]
- What would you do if you got that result? [contingency]
[N] CONSISTENCY_CHECK:
- Are you applying the same quality standards across similar decisions? [Y/N]
- Where might you be applying double standards? [identify]
[O] SIMPLIFICATION_OPPORTUNITY:
- Is there a simpler approach that achieves 80% of the result? [describe]
- What is the cost of the last 20%? [effort vs value]
- Would the simpler approach be good enough? [Y/N — why]
[P] METRIC_GAMING_CHECK:
- What metric are you tracking? [metric]
- What outcome does the metric represent? [real thing]
- Could the metric improve while the outcome worsens? [Y/N — how]
- Are you optimizing the metric or the outcome? [honest assessment]
Phase 5: Report
UGA v5 OPERATIONAL & META-COGNITIVE ANALYSIS:
Goal: [goal]
OPERATIONAL:
Capacity utilization: [X]%
Slack: [Y]% — [adequate / WARNING / CRITICAL]
Decisions/week: [N] — pre-decidable: [M]
Interruption cost: [hours/week]
Queue time: [hours/week]
META-COGNITIVE:
Cognitive load: [sustainable / unsustainable]
Attention: [X]% actual vs [Y]% needed — [matched / over / under]
Burnout risk: [LOW / MEDIUM / HIGH / IMMINENT]
Sustainability: [this pace is / is not maintainable for required duration]
QUALITY:
Validation: [method] — can return negative: [Y/N]
Simplification: [opportunity identified / none]
Metric gaming risk: [LOW / MEDIUM / HIGH]
OPERATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. [specific change to improve sustainability]
2. [specific pre-decision to reduce decision load]
3. [specific interruption fix]
SUSTAINABILITY VERDICT:
[SUSTAINABLE / NEEDS ADJUSTMENT / UNSUSTAINABLE]
Required change: [if not sustainable, what must change]
→ INVOKE: /uga $ARGUMENTS (for full analysis incorporating operational findings)
Failure Modes
| Failure | Signal | Fix |
|---|
| Capacity denial | Utilization calculated at 60% when person is clearly overwhelmed | Include ALL active commitments, not just this goal |
| Feelings as validation | Validation method is "I'll know it when I see it" | Require a method that can return NEGATIVE |
| Metric gaming blindness | Metric is improving but real outcome is flat or declining | Ask: could metric improve while outcome worsens? |
| Burnout normalization | High burnout risk accepted as "just how it is" | Flag: is this sprint or marathon? Sprints end. Marathons need sustainability |
| Ignoring attention mismatch | Goal receives 10% attention but requires 40% | Name the competing demands explicitly |
| Skipping pre-decisions | All recurring decisions left as real-time judgment calls | Force: for each recurring decision, can a rule replace judgment? |
Depth Scaling
| Depth | Operational | Meta-Cognitive | Quality |
|---|
| 1x | Capacity utilization estimate | Burnout risk score | Single validation method |
| 2x | Full capacity + decision load + interruptions | Attention allocation + sustainability | Validation + metric gaming check |
| 4x | All operational categories + queue analysis | Full meta-cognitive with trend analysis | All quality checks + simplification analysis |
| 8x | Operational simulation (model week-by-week load) | Cognitive load diary design | Validation system design with feedback loops |
Default: 2x. These are floors.
Pre-Completion Checklist
Integration
- Consolidated into:
/uga (which uses v5's categories in Steps 14-16)
- Use standalone when: Strategy exists but sustainability is in question
- Routes to:
/uga (full analysis), /pre (energy/sustainability check)
- Invoked by: Users with a plan that feels unsustainable
- Differs from /uga: /uga runs all 17 steps; ugav5 focuses on operational viability
- Differs from /ugav4: ugav4 focuses on leverage and communication
- Differs from /pre: /pre assesses personal energy broadly; ugav5 assesses operational load for a specific goal
