Cubis Engineers

Think Clearly

Frame the right problem, separate evidence from assumptions, and find causes worth testing.

EngineeringFoundationUpdated Aug 13, 2026critical-thinkingproblem-framingroot-causeevidence

Clear thinking starts by describing reality without hiding a conclusion inside the problem statement.

Write the gap

Terminal
For [affected user or system],
[observed behavior] happens under [conditions].
We expected [target behavior].
The impact is [measured effect].
We will know it improved when [signal changes].

Weak: “The database is too small.” This assumes the answer.

Better: “Checkout requests exceed the latency target during the 18:00 traffic peak; database connection wait accounts for most of the delay.”

Separate what you know

TypeExample
FactThe trace shows 800 ms waiting for a database connection
AssumptionA larger database will reduce the wait
UnknownWhether the pool is exhausted by load or leaked connections
ConstraintCheckout must remain available during investigation

Facts need a source. Assumptions need a test. Unknowns need a next question.

Find causes, not blame

Ask “what conditions allowed this?” before “who changed it?” Trace the system from the visible symptom toward inputs, dependencies, state, recent changes, and controls.

A cause is useful when changing it should change the outcome. Test that relationship. A timeline match or confident story is not enough.

Use AI as a challenger

Give AI the sanitized problem statement and evidence. Ask:

  • Which assumptions are hidden here?
  • What other explanations fit the same facts?
  • What evidence would disprove each explanation?
  • Which question should we answer first?

Do not ask AI to name the root cause from partial context. Its job is to widen the inquiry; evidence narrows it.

Ready to act

Move forward when the team can state the outcome, evidence, key assumptions, affected people, constraints, and the next test. Perfect certainty is not required. A clear learning step is.

On this page