J. Paul is a London based designer and researcher with expertise in Speculative Design, Service Design, Design Research, and Strategy.
NKD_5 — We'll never ever know everything, and never even know everything we don't know.
The misconception it corrects
The implicit assumption underneath most strategic planning is that uncertainty is a gap to be closed — that with more data, more research, more analysis, the unknowns will shrink and decisions will improve in proportion. This is the model that produces the perpetual research request, the always-imminent strategy refresh, the additional working group.
The assumption is false in a specific technical way. The world has not just known unknowns — things we know we do not know, which more research could illuminate — but also unknown unknowns: things we do not know we do not know, which no amount of research within our current frame can surface. Donald Rumsfeld got mocked for the phrase; he was correct.
NKD_5 names this honestly. We will never know everything. We will not even know everything we do not know. Strategy that proceeds as if these constraints did not apply is not bold, it is unserious.
What it changes in practice
Reversibility becomes a first-class design property. When you cannot foresee everything, the best protection is to design decisions that can be undone. Reversibility is treated alongside cost, performance, and aesthetics as something the design has to optimise for. The question if this turns out to be wrong, how do we get out? is asked at every milestone, not only at risk reviews.
Optionality is purchased deliberately. Strategic options — the ability to take a different path later — have a cost in the present and a value in the future. NKD_5-trained organisations price both, and pay for optionality the way they would pay for any other strategic asset. They are willing to ship a slightly worse current solution if it preserves a much wider set of future moves.
The strategy doc admits what it does not know. Most strategy documents are written in the voice of false certainty: the market will, the customer wants, the competition is. NKD_5 strategy documents have a section — explicit, signed, dated — labelled "What we are guessing about, and how confident we are." This section is the most useful part of the document twelve months later.
A working method: the regret-budget exercise
Before any major strategic decision, we run a thirty-minute exercise we call the regret budget.
The premise: assume the decision turns out to be wrong. Twelve months from now, leadership is reviewing it and the verdict is that it was the wrong call. What was the biggest regret-driver, and what would the cost of being wrong look like?
The team writes, in advance, three documents:
- 1.The regret note. A one-page document, written in the past tense, from the perspective of twelve months hence: "We made this decision in May 2026. We were wrong because ___. The biggest cost was ___. With hindsight we should have ___ instead."
- 2.The unwinding plan. If the regret note turns out to be accurate, what is the path back? How long would it take, what would it cost, what is the latest reasonable moment to make the call to unwind?
- 3.The early-warning list. What three to five signals would tell us, before twelve months are up, that the regret note is becoming likely? Where are those signals visible, and who is watching?
The exercise does not tell you whether to make the decision. It tells you the shape of the downside and the cost of moving carefully versus moving fast. Sometimes that is enough to proceed with the original decision, sometimes enough to adjust it, sometimes enough to delay.
It also, importantly, gives you a written artefact you can revisit. Twelve months later, with the actual data, you can compare the actual outcome against the regret note. That comparison is one of the most reliable ways we have found to train an organisation's strategic intuition over time.
A note on what this principle is not
NKD_5 is not paralysis. It is not "we can never know enough to act." It is the discipline of acting under acknowledged uncertainty rather than pretended certainty. Organisations that take it seriously usually move faster, not slower — because they have stopped using "more research" as a procrastination device and started moving on bets that are properly priced for their downside.
It is also not pessimism. It is closer to the opposite. The willingness to acknowledge what you do not know is, in our experience, strongly correlated with the willingness to back ambitious bets, because the team has done the work to know how it will catch itself if it falls.
Where this principle lives in our work
NKD_5 is the principle most cited by procurement and finance teams in our post-engagement debriefs. The regret-budget exercise tends to be the single artefact most often integrated into clients' standing strategy processes after we leave. It does work that the standard risk register cannot, because it forces a narrative description of the failure mode and an unwinding plan rather than a probability number.
Key takeaway: uncertainty is not a gap to be closed by more research. It is a permanent operating condition. Design for reversibility, pay for optionality, and write the regret note before the decision rather than after.
← NKD_4 | Next: NKD_6 — The case against forecast-led strategy →