---
name: Framework Library Index
description: Mental models and judgment frameworks discovered during teaching sessions — standalone reference docs for evaluating AI signals, companies, and technologies
tags:
  - index
  - frameworks
  - learning
---

# Framework Library

> Judgment frameworks and mental models built during teaching sessions. Each is a standalone reference document — useful without the conversation context. Obsidian-compatible with backlinks and tags.

## Frameworks

| Framework | Session | Core Question It Answers | Tags |
|-----------|---------|-------------------------|------|
| [[research-transfer-judgment]] | 15 (2026-04-14) | "Does this research finding apply to my specific use case, or only to the benchmark context?" | #research #evaluation #agents #judgment |
| [[research-to-infrastructure-threat]] | 15 (2026-04-14) | "Is this research breakthrough a real infrastructure disruption or just an interesting paper?" | #research #infrastructure #investment #hardware |
| [[ai-company-moat-evaluation]] | 12 (2026-04-09) | "Does this AI company have a durable moat, or will it get commoditized?" | #investment #moats #saas #strategy #evaluation |
| [[ai-self-improvement-hierarchy]] | 9 (2026-04-04) | "Where does the new information come from, and what's the ceiling on self-improvement?" | #self-improvement #training #evaluation #reasoning |
| [[who-controls-the-dial]] | 8 (2026-04-03) | "Is this safety capability also a misalignment tool? Who controls it, and is there an audit trail?" | #safety #governance #evaluation #alignment |
| [[compound-reliability-agent-workflows]] | 7 (2026-04-02) | "Is this agent tool actually reliable in production multi-step workflows?" | #agents #reliability #evaluation #pricing |
| [[reward-signal-evaluation]] | 6 (2026-04-01) | "What behavior does this training approach actually incentivize?" | #training #RLHF #safety #evaluation |
| [[revenue-per-compute]] | 4 (2026-03-25) | "Why did this company kill/launch this product?" | #strategy #business #compute-economics |

## How to Use

- When evaluating an **agent tool or startup**: start with [[compound-reliability-agent-workflows]]
- When evaluating a **safety capability or interpretability breakthrough**: start with [[who-controls-the-dial]]
- When evaluating a **training announcement or safety claim**: start with [[reward-signal-evaluation]]
- When evaluating a **company strategic move**: start with [[revenue-per-compute]]
- When evaluating an **AI/SaaS company for investment**: start with [[ai-company-moat-evaluation]]
- When evaluating whether a **research finding applies to your deployment**: start with [[research-transfer-judgment]]
- When evaluating whether a **research paper threatens existing infrastructure**: start with [[research-to-infrastructure-threat]]
- When evaluating a **chip or hardware announcement**: see [[ai-compute-evaluation-framework]] (in parent directory)
- When evaluating an **agent architecture**: see [[agent-architecture-skeleton]] (in parent directory)

## Inclusion Criteria

A framework qualifies when it:
1. **Answers a recurring judgment question** — something you'll ask again when new signals arrive
2. **Was validated in conversation** — not a theoretical construct, but something that produced a useful evaluation when applied
3. **Is transferable** — applies to a category of signals, not just the specific one that triggered it