Adoption Logic Map

Adoption Logic Map

Adoption Logic describes how decisions move inside a system — who can say yes, what must be protected, and under what conditions movement occurs.

To begin, complete the Adoption Logic Map Pre-Flight below.

This captures how decisions are currently behaving inside your target system. When the system read is ready, this page will update.

Adoption Logic Map — Pre-Flight

You’ll be notified when your map is ready.

Submissions are captured immediately. The system read publishes when signals are available.

You just mapped how decisions move inside this system.

What follows is a diagnostic lens — not a judgment.

Adoption Logic — At a Glance

A semantic snapshot (not a scorecard).

System Confidence

[Medium] — how likely the system is to move under current conditions.

Primary Constraint

[Risk] is limiting commitment more than interest is limiting attention.

Active Gates

[Risk · Authority] are shaping what the system can say “yes” to.

What’s Protected

Reputation + downstream accountability are being defended.

Rational Moves

Translation + decision ownership clarification are the highest-leverage tests.

Transparency

Decision criteria + ownership are visible enough to act without guesswork.

System Snapshot

Candidate: [Candidate Name] · System: [System Name]

Path: [Approval Has Stalled] — interest exists; authority has not yet been exercised.

System Confidence: [Medium] — likelihood of movement under current conditions (system-read, not founder-read).

Active Gate(s)

Primary Active Gate: Risk Authority

When the Risk gate is active, the system is not asking “Is this good?” It is asking “What could go wrong — and who absorbs the impact if it does?”

When the Authority gate is active, Authority is present in theory, but not in motion. Agreement has not yet been claimed as a decision.

Lab’s short take: Movement is being slowed by defensibility needs, not disbelief.

What the System Is Protecting

In health-focused environments, protection is often rational and reputational — not personal. When Risk is active, the system commonly protects:

  • Reputation: In health contexts, reputation is operational survival — not branding.
  • Downstream accountability: One decision can trigger second-order effects that outlast the project.
  • Decision defensibility: Leaders must be able to explain why approval was justified.

Lab’s short take: The system is optimizing for “safe to approve,” not “interesting to explore.”

What This Is (and Is Not) Asking of You

What this asks right now.

  • Clarity: so risk can be evaluated without assumptions filling the gaps.
  • Translation: so your work matches how this system defines and manages risk.
  • Patience: because decision authority has not yet been exercised.

What this is not asking right now

  • More persuasion: belief already exists.
  • More validation: interest is not the constraint.
  • More building: capability is not the bottleneck.

Reminder: “I don’t know” is a valid input. Progress here is measured in clarity, not velocity.

Rational Moves Available

These are options that make sense given the terrain — not prescriptions.

  • Reframe risk in your target system’s language: describe risk the way this system recognizes and mitigates it (e.g., “fits within existing safeguards and review practices”).
  • Clarify decision ownership: identify who can say yes — not who is most enthusiastic — so movement doesn’t stall in approval limbo.
  • Pause without retreat: allow the system to resolve internal risk questions without forcing momentum that backfires later.

Facilitation fit: This is the moment to workshop one or two low-risk moves before testing them.

What Changed Because You Mapped This

  • You gained language for what the system is actually deciding.
  • You reduced misplaced blame loops (self or system) by naming decision conditions.
  • You can now choose tests with intention — instead of pushing harder by default.

Lab’s short take: Even without immediate movement, this map clarified what “good next” looks like.

Next Rooms (Available When Useful)

  • Stakeholders & Power: useful if authority is unclear or fragmented.
  • Value Chain: useful if your work is being evaluated in pieces rather than as a whole.
  • Workflow / Integration: useful if interest exists but momentum dissipates during pilots or reviews.