Chapter 4: The Objectivity Pipeline- A Sequential Protocol for Execution
0
A theoretical framework, no matter how elegant, remains an intellectual curiosity unless it can be translated into a practical, repeatable protocol. The Orbits Model and the Latticework Theory converge into a disciplined, sequential, and recursive process I call ‘The Objectivity Pipeline’. This seven-stage pipeline provides the operational scaffolding to move from a nebulous, subjective problem to an objective, actionable solution.
Define: Articulate the core problem, obstacle, or Wildly Important Goal (WIG) with surgical, unambiguous precision. Vague, multifaceted, or emotionally charged aims guarantee vague, conflicted outcomes. This is a pure Outer Orbit activity.
Identify Variables: Catalog the key agents, forces, constraints, and measurable factors involved in the system. Move into the Middle Orbit. What are the inputs, outputs, and actors? Distinguish between independent variables (potential levers) and dependent variables (outcomes).
Map Relationships: Diagram the causal, correlational, inhibitory, and influential links between the identified variables. This is the cartography of the latticework. Tools include causal loop diagrams, systems maps, influence diagrams, and process flows. The goal is to visualize the system's structure, revealing feedback loops, bottlenecks, and leverage points.
Model: Construct a formal representation of the mapped system. This is the decisive leap to the Inner Orbit. The model can take many forms: a set of statistical equations, a system of differential equations, an agent-based computer simulation, a Bayesian network, or even a rigorously structured qualitative framework. The model is a simplified but functional analogue of reality, designed for manipulation and testing.
Simulate: Run the model. Conduct experiments in silico. Test scenarios, stress-test assumptions under extreme conditions, and observe the range of potential outcomes the system logic produces. This stage provides a safe, low-cost environment for failure and learning before committing real-world resources.
Verify: Return to the Middle Orbit. Collect new, out-of-sample empirical data—data not used to build the model—and check the model’s predictions against this observed reality. Does the world behave as the model forecasts? If not, the error is not in "reality"; it lies in an earlier stage of the pipeline. The process must recursively return to Definition, Variable Identification, Relationship Mapping, or Model Formulation for correction.
Optimize: With a reasonably verified model, adjust the controllable variables within it to find the most efficient, effective, or robust path to achieve the goal defined in Stage 1. This is the stage of generating prescriptions and strategies.
The Four Disciplines of Execution (4DX): The corporate strategy framework developed by McChesney, Covey, and Huling (The 4 Disciplines of Execution, 2012) is a streamlined, commercialized instantiation of the Objectivity Pipeline, designed for team-level implementation.
Define: Focus on the Wildly Important Goal (WIG)—no more than one or two overwhelming priorities.
Identify Variables: Differentiate between Lag Measures (the ultimate outcome metrics, like revenue or customer satisfaction) and Lead Measures (the predictive, influenceable activities that drive the lag measures, like sales calls or quality checks).
Map Relationships: Create a Compelling Scoreboard that is simple, public, and visually maps, in real-time, the relationship between lead measure activity and progress toward the WIG.
Model & Cadence: Establish a recurring Cadence of Accountability, a short, rhythmic meeting (e.g., weekly) where team members report on commitments, review the scoreboard, and plan new commitments. This cadence functions as a live, human-powered simulation, verification, and optimization loop, embodying stages 5-7 of the pipeline in a behavioral rhythm.
The Lucas Paradox and the Anatomy of Perceived Risk: The Lucas Paradox, introduced by Nobel Prize winning economist Robert Lucas in 1990, refers to the persistent empirical observation that capital does not flow from capital-rich countries to capital-poor countries at the scale predicted by neoclassical growth theory, despite higher marginal returns to capital in poorer economies. This phenomenon is not a failure of investor rationality, nor is it primarily a behavioral anomaly. It is a failure of overly narrow models of risk and return.
In its simplest form, the canonical model assumes that capital responds to differences in marginal productivity adjusted for measurable risk. Under those assumptions, capital should flow aggressively toward emerging and frontier markets. It does not. The paradox arises because the model omits structural variables that dominate realized outcomes in cross-border investment.
The conventional framing treats the problem as one of portfolio optimization under uncertainty, focusing on variables such as growth rates, inflation, fiscal balance, political stability indices, and currency volatility. These variables are necessary but insufficient. Empirical research following Lucas has repeatedly shown that capital flows are far more sensitive to institutional quality, property rights enforcement, legal predictability, capital controls, sovereign credibility, and the risk of expropriation than to marginal productivity alone. Once these variables are incorporated, much of the paradox dissolves.
A latticework-consistent approach does not redefine the problem as “exploiting irrational fear.” It reframes it as identifying structural wedges between theoretical returns and realizable returns. The relevant distinction is not between perceived and actual risk in a behavioral sense, but between modeled risk and true system risk, much of which is institutional, legal, and political rather than financial.
A pipeline-compliant analysis therefore proceeds differently. It defines the problem as understanding why expected returns fail to materialize when capital is deployed across jurisdictions. It expands the variable set to include enforceability of contracts, durability of political coalitions, susceptibility to policy reversal, credibility of monetary and fiscal regimes, depth of domestic financial markets, and exposure to global liquidity cycles. It models the interaction between these variables, recognizing that risk is not additive but multiplicative. Weak institutions amplify shocks, truncate upside, and skew return distributions through tail events rather than through mean variance alone.
Failing to be conscientious in pursuing objectivity using pipeline steps can have severe consequences at a global level making it an approach valid for consideration and study.
Share:
Chapter 4: The Objectivity Pipeline- A Sequential Protocol for Execution
copy:
https://bluwr.com/p/604632938
