Indicio.
§ 2–3 · Principles

Four commitments.
Five rejections.
Three constraints.

INDX / § 2–3
STRUCTURAL · NON-NEGOTIABLE
Commitments
§ 2

Structural, not cultural.

§ 2.1

Commitment to velocity

Time is a scarce and expensive resource. A fast decision on incomplete information is often superior to a slow one on slightly better information. Velocity applies equally to stopping — ending quickly when signals are negative is a success, not a failure.

§ 2.2

Commitment to commitment

Once a decision is made, the system requires full commitment. Half-measures are discouraged. Commitment is procedural, not emotional. Decisions may be reversed only when new information enters the system.

§ 2.3

Commitment to context

The same metric means very different things in Discovery, Validation, and Exploitation. Signals are always interpreted relative to state. Context prevents overreaction to noise and mis-reading of legitimate signal.

§ 2.4

Commitment to radical honesty

Capital exists to buy truth. Hypotheses are presented with binary thresholds, bear cases are named without softening, and communications are not optimised for emotional resonance. Softening under pressure violates the system regardless of outcome.

§ 1.4 · Rejections

What the system refuses to do.

01

Long planning cycles without market interaction

Strategy that is not grounded in real signals is speculative at best and dangerous at worst.
02

Consensus-driven decision-making

Decisions made to preserve harmony tend to be slow and suboptimal. Clarity and speed over agreement.
03

Treating all projects as equally important

Equality is the enemy of performance in power-law environments. Inequality of attention is required, not optional.
04

Storytelling as substitute for evidence

Capital is raised by presenting falsification protocols with explicit thresholds, not by promising outcomes. Any communication that promises certainty violates this rejection.
05

Architect-dependency as growth model

The system must scale via trained operators. Founder-dependent systems are explicitly rejected as scaling failure modes, even when they produce strong early outputs.
Hard constraints
§ 3

Filters that decide what may enter the system.

§ 3.1

Economic viability

Every case must have a defensible path to meaningful enterprise value. For DTC, 5–10M USD ARR within three years. Adjacent asset classes have equivalent thresholds. Heroic assumptions disqualify a case.

§ 3.2

Capital structure

CAPEX-light by default. OPEX-light by design. Fixed costs are treated as system debt. Variable costs that scale with evidence are preferred to commitments made in advance.

§ 3.3

Distribution reality

A clear and realistic distribution advantage is required at entry. A business that only works with continuous capital injection is structurally fragile and is rejected.

Canonical posture

“We do not know the outcome. If our hypotheses and attributes hold, the risk-adjusted return is attractive. Here are the thresholds. Here is the bear case.”

Any communication that promises certainty violates the system. Radical honesty filters out most audiences. That is a feature, not a defect.