Fog of War (Frontier Planning)

These examples and illustrative results are independently authored teaching materials, not measured model results.

Use case

A migration needs compatibility research before detailed rollout. Teaching Q1 ‘Does the library support the target version?’ is precise already; future rollout strategy remains too vague to specify. Distinguish a sharp question from a known answer.

Mechanism

Record destination, settled decisions, precise questions, unclear directions and excluded work. Precise blocked questions are named tasks; genuinely unclear directions stay not-yet-specified. After frontier results, promote newly precise questions with dependencies without inventing all future steps.

Bad example

Q1 is unanswered, so leave it in fog, while guessing every rollout/rollback step to make the plan look complete.

Good example

Aim for an implementable migration spec. Create precise Q1 compatibility work; record precise dependent questions as blocked tasks. Rollout is not yet sharp, so retain it in not-yet-specified with research dependencies. Resolve Q1, record decisions and promote newly specifiable questions. Separate excluded operational changes from in-scope frontier work.

Why the change matters

Premature detail disguises guesses as decisions; treating precise questions as fog delays useful research. Question sharpness enables honest progress.

Observable expectation

The illustrative map has Q1, an unclear rollout direction and excluded work. Compatibility results update affected regions without duplicating Q1 or inventing settled rollout.

Keep precise blocked questions out of fog; an empty fog section supports completion only with all necessary decisions resolved.

Limits

Frontier planning serves investigation-driven work, not replacement of a decision-complete implementation plan. Excluded work does not automatically become a task over time, and unknowns do not justify stopping known work.