Not whether you have them. Not whether they’re fair. Just how fast you move toward them. Every time you deal with something right away, your capacity grows. You trust yourself more. You stop carrying the mental weight. You get stronger without even realizing it. Every time you delay, it gets heavier. It takes more energy. It starts to feel bigger than it actually is. Over time, that difference compounds. Solving small problems quickly builds confidence. Solving bigger ones consistently builds identity. And that capacity — the ability to handle hard things without hesitation — is what actually allows you to build something great. What’s one thing you know you need to face this week instead of pushing it off?

The team and I did this and some of the results were very interesting! Go into ChatGPT and post this prompt: "Based on all the conversations we've had, can you analyze my behavioural tendencies. Keep it short and concise" Post your response in the comments below and let us know if any of it was a surprise to you! Here is mine: Here are the behavioural tendencies you consistently show in our chats: - Iterative builder: You like shipping a version, then tightening it fast with specific edits and constraints. - Framework-first thinker: You gravitate toward checklists, systems, repeatable steps, and clear structure over vague advice. - High signal standards: You push for longer, fuller answers with real substance, not surface-level answers. - Precision + optimisation bias: Whether it’s macros, pricing, positioning, or scripts, you like measurable targets and tuning variables. - Creative but directed: You enjoy big imaginative swings, but you still want them organized and usable. - Action orientation: You regularly steer toward “what do I do next” and practical outputs you can deploy immediately.

Most teams do not lose time because they move slowly, they lose time because they move forward without alignment. “Almost clear” requirements feel like speed, but they quietly inflate cycle time by creating rework, decision churn, and a constant drip of clarifying conversations that arrive too late. If we want real time back, we stop treating requirements as paperwork and start treating them as a time strategy. AI becomes powerful when we use it to turn vague intent into usable clarity early, so we stop rebuilding the same work in different versions. ------------- Context: Where Requirements Become a Time Leak ------------- In most organizations, the requirement stage is where time either gets protected or gets mortgaged. When we skip the hard thinking upfront, we do not eliminate work, we just push it downstream where it is more expensive. We see this in everyday micro-scenarios. A manager asks for “a quick overview deck” for leadership. Someone creates slides, adds charts, writes copy, and shares it. The feedback is not “this is wrong,” it is “this is not quite what I meant.” Now we are not just revising slides, we are revisiting the definition of the request. The work becomes a discovery process that should have happened before production. Another common pattern is the “invisible stakeholder.” We think the request is between two people, but the output is actually meant for five audiences with different needs. The moment that stakeholder appears, the work shifts. The assumptions that were harmless in a narrow context become costly in a broader one. More revisions appear, and the cycle time stretches. Then there is the “requirements teleport.” The brief says one thing, but the review conversation references a different goal, or a different constraint, or a new deadline. Everyone is still trying to be helpful, but the target is moving. That movement is time loss in disguise because it creates churn without accountability. What makes this so painful is that rework does not arrive as a single event. It arrives as repeated touches. We revisit the same doc, the same deck, the same plan, each time paying a context switching tax. It is not the minutes of editing that hurt, it is the hours lost to mental reload and coordination.