Skip to main content

Challenge assumptions

Challenging assumptions keeps strategic conversations honest. Wardley Mapping exposes how much of a plan rests on untested beliefs about users, the value chain, or how components will evolve. Making those bets explicit allows teams to confront cognitive bias, surface missing data, and refine the map before inertia hardens around a flawed narrative.

Why this doctrine matters​

  • Assumptions hide duplication and waste. Untested beliefs about user needs or component maturity encourage teams to rebuild capabilities that already exist elsewhere.
  • Maps lose power without dissent. A static, uncontested map quickly becomes theatre; constant challenge keeps it relevant to the real landscape.
  • Bias thrives in silence. Naming uncertainties invites multiple perspectives, reducing the risk of cascade bias or outcome bias steering decisions.

Practices to embed​

  1. Tag every component with its evidence. Distinguish data from hypothesis on the map so the team can see where assumptions dominate.
  2. Run regular challenge sessions. Invite adjacent teams, partners, or users to critique the map and hunt for blind spots.
  3. Instrument learning loops. Pair each major assumption with a cheap experiment, telemetry review, or discovery interview to validate it quickly.
  4. Capture counterarguments. Record alternative explanations and what would make them true so they can be revisited as signals change.

Watch for anti-patterns​

  • Treating senior opinion as a proxy for evidence instead of testing the claim.
  • Freezing the map after a single review cycle and assuming the landscape is settled.
  • Conflating speed of agreement with quality of decision-making.

Questions to ask​

  • Which parts of the map rely on opinion rather than observed data?
  • What signals would prove this assumption wrong, and how will we detect them?
  • Who is incentivised to disagree with our current view, and have we heard from them?
  • What happens if this assumption fails after we commit?