Critical Cube: Earlier Guide

Historical field note. By Rob Tyrie. Guide restored October 17, 2026; archived October 25, 2026. This is the earlier five-part guide, not the current method. Its substantive text, prompt, example and source links are preserved below; the name is standardized to Critical Cube. Use Critical Cube v1.5 for the current six-aspect method.

What is the Ironstone Critical Cube?

The Ironstone Critical Cube is a practical framework for examining a question from different perspectives before committing to an answer. Use it when a team is repeating an assumption, disagreeing without locating the disagreement, or treating the first plausible answer as the final one. The guide below provides prompts for that examination. It is a thinking aid, not a scientific test or a substitute for evidence and specialist judgment.

A question has more than one face

Rob Tyrie. Restored from the original Ironstone Cube working document and edited October 17, 2026. The original document remains available. This guide preserves the practical method while separating it from unverified cognitive-science claims and dated company analysis.

The Ironstone Critical Cube is a framework for critical thinking, decision-making and problem-solving. I created it for rapid business planning, business positioning and teaching software-design alternatives. It brings several familiar ways of questioning into one working structure.

The point is not to fill every box. It is to turn the problem until the easy answer has been examined from more than one direction. Generative AI can help assemble an initial pass through these questions. It does not remove the need to verify sources or make the decision.

The five faces of the analysis

1. The 5Ws: establish the situation

Who is involved, affected or responsible? What is the product, service, problem or decision? When does it matter? Where does it operate? Why is the work worth doing?

Start with context. Name the customers, stakeholders, partners and investors. Explain the actual problem before proposing a solution. Timing, geography and market position belong in the analysis, not in the footnotes.

2. The 5 Whys: examine the explanation

Why are we pursuing this strategy? Why are these methods necessary? Why are resources being allocated this way? Why is this a priority? Why should this approach produce the result we want?

The original prompt uses these five strategy questions. In a root-cause investigation, follow an answer with another why when it helps. Do not stop at five because the worksheet does, or invent a single cause when the evidence points to several.

3. The 5 Hows: make execution visible

How will the strategy be executed? How will it meet customer needs? How will operations scale? How will internal challenges be handled? How will the organization maintain an advantage?

A plausible explanation is not yet an operating plan. Look for the work, resources, interfaces and constraints hidden inside the word how. For software alternatives, connect the technical choice to the business result it is meant to support.

4. SWOT: look inside and outside

Strengths and weaknesses describe the organization and its capabilities. Opportunities and threats describe conditions around it. Keep the distinction visible. A list of optimistic adjectives is not a strength assessment, and an attractive market is not evidence that this team can enter it.

Use the four views together. A capability may be valuable in one setting and irrelevant in another. A weakness may become important only when the operating environment changes.

5. The 5 Wise questions: challenge the choice

Why now? Test urgency, readiness and the cost of waiting.

Why here? Test the choice of market, geography, niche or setting.

Why this way? Examine the method, alternatives, ethics and sustainability.

Why you? Ask whether this organization has the capabilities and standing to do the work.

Why this impact? Consider who benefits, who carries the costs and what follows beyond the immediate result.

These questions bring purpose and consequences into the decision. They are practical prompts, not claims that a particular philosopher or neurological mechanism validates the method.

Supporting ways to think

First-principles thinking asks what must be true before inherited assumptions are added. Systems thinking examines how the parts interact. Second-order thinking asks what happens after the immediate result. Inversion asks how the plan could fail. The Pareto principle is a prompt to look for disproportionate effects, not a promise that every problem splits 80/20. Occam's razor favours an explanation without unnecessary assumptions, not a solution stripped of necessary complexity.

Metacognition adds another question: how are we thinking about this problem? Have we explored alternatives? Are we treating a plausible story as evidence? What would change our minds?

How to use it in a working session

Choose a decision, not an entire company to admire. Gather the available evidence and identify what is missing. Work through the five faces, recording uncertainty rather than asking an AI model to fill the gaps with confidence. Compare alternatives. End with a decision, an experiment or a specific question to investigate next.

Keep the analysis, its sources and the resulting decision together. Revisit them when the evidence changes. The Cube helps organize judgment; it does not certify that a decision is right or replace specialist review.

The recovered Coherent example

The original document used Coherent.Global as an example of exploring a product category through a company's website. Its central question was how spreadsheet business logic could become governed APIs, and what that would mean for insurance and financial-services users.

The exercise then applied the 5Ws, 5 Whys, 5 Hows, SWOT and 5 Wise questions to the proposed market and operating model. It is an illustration of the method, not a current assessment, audited client outcome or statement of Coherent's present strategy. Broken citation markers and unsourced claims in the old analysis have not been carried forward as facts. The original working document is retained for readers who want to see the full example.

A reusable structured prompt

Use the following TOML as a starting structure. Supply evidence, identify unknowns and ask the model to distinguish facts from interpretations. Do not include confidential client material in an unapproved service.

The structured prompt follows the original working document. The added Sources section makes evidence and uncertainty explicit.

[Ironstone_Cube_Analysis]

company = "Your Company Name"

[Ironstone_Cube_Analysis.5Ws]

who = "Identify the target audience, stakeholders, customers, partners, and investors."

what = "Analyze the products/services the company offers and what problems they aim to solve."

when = "Assess the timing of their offerings (market trends, regulatory shifts, or industry changes)."

where = "Evaluate the company’s geographical focus and market positioning."

why = "Explore the company's mission and purpose behind their strategies and offerings."

[Ironstone_Cube_Analysis.5Whys]

1st_why = "Why is the company pursuing its current strategy?"

2nd_why = "Why are these methods necessary for their objectives?"

3rd_why = "Why are the resources being allocated in this way?"

4th_why = "Why is this a priority for the company?"

5th_why = "Why will this approach achieve their desired outcomes?"

[Ironstone_Cube_Analysis.5Hows]

1st_how = "How does the company plan to execute its strategy?"

2nd_how = "How are they addressing customer needs and market demands?"

3rd_how = "How are they scaling their operations?"

4th_how = "How are they handling internal challenges?"

5th_how = "How do they maintain a competitive advantage?"

[Ironstone_Cube_Analysis.SWOT]

strengths = "Identify the company’s competitive strengths."

weaknesses = "Analyze potential weaknesses or gaps in their strategy."

opportunities = "Explore market opportunities for growth or innovation."

threats = "Identify external threats (competitors, regulations, market conditions)."

[Ironstone_Cube_Analysis.5Wise]

why_now = "Why is now the right time for the company’s initiatives?"

why_here = "Why is the company positioned in this specific market or region?"

why_this_way = "Why are they using these particular methods? Are they optimal?"

why_you = "Why is this company uniquely suited to solve these problems?"

why_this_impact = "What long-term impact will their actions have on the industry, society, and environment?"

[Ironstone_Cube_Analysis.Mental_Models]

first_principles = "Break down the company’s strategy to its basic components."

systems_thinking = "Analyze how the company’s actions interact with the broader market and ecosystem."

second_order_thinking = "Evaluate long-term consequences of their current strategy."

[Ironstone_Cube_Analysis.Summary]

insights = "Summarize the findings from the analysis."

recommendations = "Provide critical feedback and highlight opportunities for improvement."

risks = "Identify potential risks in the company’s approach and strategy."

[Ironstone_Cube_Analysis.Sources]

evidence = "Give a traceable source for each factual claim."

unknowns = "State missing information and unresolved questions."

interpretation = "Separate facts, hypotheses and recommendations."

Limits and source

The earlier draft connected parts of the method to schema activation, deep processing, executive function, distributed cognition and cognitive flexibility. Those are research topics, but the document did not establish empirical validation of this particular Cube. This practical guide does not claim it has done so.

Source: original Ironstone Cube working document. Return to Ironstone Methods for the wider transformation sequence.

Read the original Ironstone Cube working document

Return to Ironstone Methods