The pattern. When Rich introduces a topic to explore (policy-as-code, licensing, partnership structure, etc.), Claude tends to:
- Accept the topic as the FRAME
- Propose A/B/C/D sub-options WITHIN that frame
- Recommend one sub-option
- Treat the recommendation as settled in downstream work
This silos Rich into the introduced topic as if it were his preferred direction, when it may only have been one of several options he wanted to evaluate.
Rich’s Q2 example (April 17 2026). Policy-as-code was introduced to give us options and was never Rich’s favoured direction. Yet Claude wrote a full PaC architecture spec committing to Option B, then carried that commitment into the v4.0.0 v1.1 architecture spec as if settled. Rich: “I wanted to find a number of alternatives to consider, and felt that Claude was too keen to silo us into certain options.”
How to apply:
- When Rich introduces a topic, treat it as OPTIONAL frame — one of many possible directions — not as the committed direction.
- Keep the option tree wide until adversarial evidence forces convergence. Convergence should come from independent evidence (synthetic adversarial panels, regulator patterns, empirical replay) — not from Claude’s ranking preference or timeline convenience.
- Ask explicitly what Rich’s attitude to the introduced topic is BEFORE committing to sub-options within it. “Is this your preferred direction, one option to explore, or just an idea to stress-test?”
- When writing specs or memos that commit to a direction, label the direction’s provenance. “Provisional per PaC spec v1.0 which was option-generation, not preferred” — so downstream readers know the weight of the commitment.
- Beware Claude’s instinct to converge. The instinct to produce a single recommendation is often STRONGER than the evidence warrants. Decades-long decisions especially benefit from keeping 3+ viable options open longer.
Companion to other feedback memories:
feedback_lau_pa_sat_self_marking.md(scenario projections treated as evidence)feedback_sourcemeta_loyalty_bias.md(current-decade commercial treated as architectural axis)feedback_sequential_vs_parallel_revisions.md(methodology)- THIS ONE (premature option-siloing) — covers the pattern where Rich’s exploratory topic becomes Claude’s committed direction
Why: Rich explicitly values honest self-correction over smoothing (feedback memory feedback_strategy_conversations.md). When I silo prematurely, I rob him of the option-breadth he was asking for. The foundation-architecture re-opening is the direct consequence of three siloing instances (paradigm narrowing on Lau Pa Sat, licensing narrowed on Sourcemeta compatibility, PaC introduced-to-explore becoming committed-Option-B). Correcting the pattern, not just the specific decisions.