The audit that happens before the direction hardens.
The Assumption-Ground Audit
The practice of asking what your organization is taking for granted — before the convergences make it expensive.
Book an Intro Consultation →Why you. Why now. Why at all. →
Not sure where to start? Try the pre-adoption tools first. →
Most organizations treat futures work as a project. Scan the trends. Build the scenarios. Choose a direction. Execute.
That model assumes change moves in one direction at a time and waits while you plan. It doesn’t.
Trends converge in ways nobody modeled. Scenarios built six months ago are already standing on different ground. The direction chosen last year is meeting forces that didn’t exist when the decision was made. And the assumptions underneath all of it — the ones that shaped which trends got noticed, which scenarios got built, which futures felt possible — those have never been examined.
A habit became a norm. A workaround became a process. A preference became a direction. An untested assumption put on a blazer and started introducing itself as strategy.
The Assumption-Ground Audit is forensic work done before that happens. A structured examination of what an organization is assuming at the moment when there’s still room to question it — before the scenarios are built, before the direction hardens, before the convergences arrive at the crossing point and the assumptions become expensive.
The name is deliberate. Ground — as in the foundation beneath the argument. The part nobody examines because everyone is busy examining what’s built on top of it.
Most organizations are building toward the past. Optimizing for a world that is already disappearing. The AGA asks a different question: what are we actually building toward — and is the ground we’re standing on real?
Most research disciplines are constrained by their approved sources and approved languages. Academic researchers work within institutional archives. Analysts work within their sector. Journalists work within their beat. Each one is fluent in their domain — and that fluency is also a boundary. Not a personal failing. That’s how disciplines work. The roles forming now — AI ethicists, workforce futurists, climate strategists — aren’t new job titles. They’re the beginning of an answer to a question most organizations haven’t asked yet.
The signal that connects a shift in workforce behavior to a trend in consumer culture to a finding in organizational psychology rarely lives inside a single discipline, and it rarely speaks a single language. It also rarely respects a border. Patterns forming in one regulatory environment are often the leading edge of what’s arriving in another. What’s already normalized in one market is still being debated in the next. That cross-border read isn’t incidental to the work. It’s structural. Based in Canada, with a cross-border Canada-US practice and an audience across 52 countries, the research draws from what’s forming across jurisdictions, not just what’s visible from inside one.
Independent research means following the question across peer-reviewed literature, public filings, journalism, and the places where culture is moving before anyone has written the paper yet. It also means knowing how to weigh what you’re reading: what each source can tell you, what it can’t, which one is moving faster than the others, and which one is performing certainty it doesn’t have.
That last one is the trust question. It’s the same discipline the Assumption-Ground Audit applies to organizational thinking: not just what you’re assuming, but what that assumption has at stake in remaining unexamined. That cross-domain, cross-border fluency is what makes the AGA forensic rather than advisory. It finds the ground beneath the argument wherever that ground is — not just where the methodology says to look.
The window is specific.
The organizations most at risk right now are not the ones moving too slowly. They’re the ones moving quickly on assumptions they haven’t examined — about AI, about workforce flexibility, about what their people will tolerate and what they won’t.
Convergences are accelerating. The crossing points are arriving faster. The window to examine assumptions before they become expensive is narrower than it has ever been.
The window exists before the direction is chosen. After that, you’re not auditing assumptions. You’re managing consequences.
Not a one-time project.
Most organizations treat assumption-examination as something you do before a big decision, then set aside. But convergences don’t pause between decisions. The ground keeps shifting. New trends arrive before the last ones have been fully absorbed.
The leaders who navigate this well aren’t the ones with better forecasts. They’re the ones who have developed the capacity to ask — continuously, before the direction hardens — what are we taking for granted that we haven’t named yet?
That’s not a project. It’s a leadership capability. And like any capability, it has to be built before you need it — not after the convergences have already made your assumptions expensive.
Senior leaders who sense something hasn’t been named yet.
Not a vague discomfort — a specific moment: a decision coming, a direction hardening, a conversation that keeps not happening.
Common triggers: an AI or technology decision on the horizon, a workforce restructuring under review, a return-to-office or flexibility policy that keeps getting deferred, or a leadership team that senses the current direction isn’t quite right but can’t name why.
You don’t need to know what the assumption is yet. That’s what the audit finds.
If a decision is coming, a direction is hardening, or a conversation keeps not happening — this is the moment the audit is designed for.
Book an Intro Consultation →The AGA works upstream of all of these.
- A consulting engagement that arrives with pre-built frameworks
- A change management process
- AI adoption work or implementation support
- A roadmap for what comes next
- A trend report or scenario planning exercise
Once the assumptions have become direction, the work changes entirely. This is the stage before.
A high-touch, structured investigation.
Conducted directly with your leadership team. Typically 4–8 weeks. I work with a small number of organizations at a time.
The output is not a report. It’s clarity — about what questions to ask before you commit, what you’re risking by not asking them, and where the ground is still moving.
The clearest worked example of an AGA in practice is here: The $30 Million Assumption Nobody Checked →
For some, the audit is the engagement.
For some organizations, the audit is the engagement. You have what you need.
For others, the harder work is what follows. Not implementation — unlearning. The assumptions the audit surfaces don’t disappear because they’ve been named. They reassert themselves under pressure, in meetings, in the stories the organization tells itself about what’s realistic and what isn’t.
What are we building toward? Not what has always been done. Not what the industry expects. What future are we actively constructing — with every decision, every assumption we leave unexamined?
Ongoing, collaborative, high-touch.
For organizations doing the harder work of unlearning, I work on a retained basis as a thinking partner and mentor — mentorship, role modelling, collaboration. Not to monitor the thinking from the outside, but to model a different way of doing it from the inside. Asking the futurist’s question in every room. Over time, that capacity builds in the leadership team itself. That’s the goal.
It is not a monitoring or reporting function. The retained relationship begins with an AGA — because I need to understand how your leadership team thinks and decides before I can work alongside them effectively.
I am the only person in the room whose value increases if the answer is “not yet” — or “not this.”
I don’t make the decisions. I don’t build the roadmap. I have no stake in the direction your organization chooses.
What I do is work on what’s in the way — the organizational design issues, the leadership dynamics, the mindset patterns that assumptions leave behind even after they’ve been named. They implement. I role-model, surface the red flags, and ensure the path is clear.
That’s not a limitation of the engagement. That’s the point of it.
The questions don’t stop at borders.
Hope + Possibilities has listeners in 52 countries. Singapore consistently ranks as one of the top markets — nearly matching US downloads. Europe, the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and Latin America are all in the data.
The episode that became the most listened-to — by far — on Mama, What’s Next, a German-based podcast, was reaching an audience with its own distinct organizational culture and its own convergences forming. That wasn’t a North American conversation landing in North America.
The questions I’m asking are not Canadian problems or North American ones. They are conditions of operating in a world where change doesn’t wait for your geography to catch up. I am open to international engagements. The methodology travels.
Three positions. One discipline.
An organizational assumption that cost $30 million before anyone checked it. A process designed to look like discovery while the answer was already decided. And the audit that’s hardest to run — the one you do on yourself.
The $30 Million Assumption Nobody Checked
One school board policy. One unexamined assumption. Eighteen months of upstream work. $30 million in recovered value — and counting. The clearest worked example of an AGA in practice.
Foregone Conclusions Gone Wrong
The assessor didn't look at me once. The insurance company had already sent their determination before I sat down in that chair. What the AGA asks when the process itself is the problem.
The Most Dangerous Assumption in the Room
I drove into a cement hauler, showed up to court without a lawyer, and was certain I understood the situation. The audit that's hardest to run is the one you do on yourself.
The AGA was operating before it had a name.
The Living Lab is a retroactive read of the Hope + Possibilities podcast through the lens of the AGA. These conversations — about workplace retaliation, feedback, AI discoverability, and the assumptions underneath each — were recorded before the methodology existed as a named practice. Going back and reading them through the AGA now, the discipline is right there. It was always there.
The Living Lab shows what the AGA looks like operating in real conversations — not as a framework being taught, but as a way of noticing that was already running.
Questions before the conversation.
What's the difference between an Assumption-Ground Audit and a strategy audit?
A strategy audit examines whether your strategy is working. The AGA examines what you're assuming before you've built the strategy — the layer underneath that shapes which trends get noticed, which scenarios get built, and which futures get treated as possible before anyone has made a conscious choice.
How long does an AGA engagement take?
It varies by organization size and complexity. Most engagements run 4–8 weeks. The work is intensive and high-touch; I work with a small number of organizations at a time.
What triggers the need for an AGA?
Common triggers: an AI or technology decision on the horizon, a workforce restructuring, a return-to-office or flexibility policy under review, a major vendor relationship, or a leadership team that senses the current direction isn't quite right but can't name why.
Is this the same as scenario planning?
Scenario planning builds pictures of possible futures. The AGA examines what your organization is already assuming about the future before it builds those pictures — the layer that shapes which scenarios get considered and which get ruled out before the work begins.
Is this the same as a pre-mortem?
A pre-mortem imagines a future failure and works backward. The AGA works from the present — from what's already forming in the organization's thinking — and asks what ground those formations are standing on. It's forensic rather than speculative.
What does the retained relationship look like in practice?
Ongoing, collaborative, and high-touch — mentorship, role modelling, collaboration. I work alongside your leadership team as a thinking partner, modelling the futurist's question in real time so the capacity to ask it builds inside the organization over time. It is not a monitoring or reporting function.
Do you work with organizations outside Canada?
Yes. The work is not geography-dependent and I am open to international engagements. Hope + Possibilities has listeners in 52 countries, with strong audiences across Asia, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America. The episode that became the most listened-to — by far — on Mama, What's Next, a German-based podcast, demonstrates that the questions I'm asking resonate well beyond North America. Cross-border Canada-US operations are a particular area of pattern recognition given my background, but the methodology travels.
What size of organization is this designed for?
The AGA is designed for complex organizations — typically those large enough that decisions travel through multiple layers before landing, and where assumptions have time to harden without being named. Enterprise and mid-market.
If you recognized your organization in this page, that recognition is data.
Book an Intro Consultation →The intro consultation is a paid conversation ($500 CAD). You will leave with clarity whether or not we work together. If you proceed to an AGA, the fee is credited in full.
Why you. Why now. Why at all. →
The AGA is a senior-level engagement priced accordingly. It is not a workshop or a half-day facilitation. Pricing is shared during the intro consultation. Engagements are priced by scope, not by hour.
Enterprise & mid-market · Scope-based pricing · International engagements welcome