Decision method
Puzzle decision audit: four questions before blaming difficulty
Separate a rules problem, a planning problem, an input problem, and a genuine difficulty wall before changing strategy.
A reader-run decision audit with a constructed four-point model. It does not diagnose skill, measure any product, or replace the rules of a specific game.
On this page
Difficulty is a conclusion, not a diagnosis
“This is too hard” can mean that the rules are unclear, the goal is undefined, the last move was irreversible, or the next check was never named. Treating all four as the same problem leads to random retries. An audit turns a vague reaction into a specific next action.
The model below deliberately ignores talent, speed, and completion time. Those factors may matter later, but they cannot be interpreted until the reader can state the current rule, goal, reversibility, and next check.
Ask four questions in order
Each question earns one point only when you can answer it in one sentence. A missing answer is not a moral failing; it shows which repair to try first.
Use the audit before consulting a hint or starting another attempt. If the score is low, improve the setup. If the score is high and the board still fails, the issue is more likely planning, execution, or a genuinely demanding state.
| Question | A pass looks like | A low-score repair |
|---|---|---|
| Can I state the rule? | “A move needs a matching top color and free capacity.” | Re-read the rule and test it with one reversible move. |
| Can I state the win condition? | “Every used container must be single-color and full.” | Write the exact end state before moving again. |
| Do I know whether the last move is reversible? | “This undo costs one credit and returns to the prior state.” | Choose a safer move or accept the cost explicitly. |
| Do I know the next check? | “After the pour, I will look for a matching exposed color.” | Name the observation that decides whether the plan continues. |
A three-point score means setup first
Suppose the rule is known, the goal is known, and the next check is named, but the reader cannot say whether the last move is reversible. The audit gives three of four points. A score below four is a setup problem, not proof of poor skill.
In that state, a better response is to pick a reversible probe, write the current arrangement, or spend one undo deliberately. It is not yet evidence that the puzzle needs an advanced strategy.
Rule known: 1
Goal known: 1
Last reversible: 0
Next check named: 1
--
Score: 3 / 4
Action: repair the setup before retrying.Use a high score to choose a different test
When all four answers are clear, repeating the same attempt becomes useful because each failure tests the plan rather than the reader’s understanding. Change one variable: the first move, the resource you preserve, or the point where you stop and rescan.
If several high-scoring attempts fail in different ways, look for a constraint you have not represented: a limited undo count, a hidden order requirement, a moving part, or a shorter win condition.
- Change the earliest questionable move, not the final panic response.
- Record one sentence about why the attempt failed.
- Stop after three distinct explanations; many failures with many explanations mean the rule model is incomplete.
Keep the audit honest
The four-point model checks clarity, not correctness. A reader can earn four points and still choose a bad move. Its purpose is to prevent a fuzzy setup from being mislabeled as difficulty.
Specific games may require additional questions for timers, random pieces, moving obstacles, or persistent consequences. Add those checks only after the four base answers are stable.
