As I discussed at Meta-problem-solving, I imagine that there is a set of “meta-problems” that people have, problems they have about how they face their problems, and this is what coaching is particularly good for addressing
As such, I want to get clients to explore this space, see how many meta-problems I can find, and also see how trying to solve each of them goes
So each client below gets treated as an experiment: presenting symptoms, the underlying problems, hypotheses, and outcome reports at 1 week / 2 weeks / 1 month / 3 months
Note that I’ve used Claude Code to compile the below, if it smells a bit LLM-y
(A) Had 2-week sprint, now on retainer
Ediya: Stuckness due to unclear brand philosophy
Initial 2-week sprint 2026-04-20 → 2026-05-03; now on retainer
Cadence: near-daily during sprint, lighter touch on retainer
“This is killing me” — stuck for 3+ years on brand philosophy; couldn’t confidently make videos or try new formats
[block] that was draining aliveness
Online course ~80% drafted, stalled by perfectionism
Fears around [block]
Multiple possible offerings competing for attention with no clear sequence
Underlying problems (my hypothesis)
Lack of clear philosophy / mission was the load-bearing block
Raw material was already internal — extraction and synthesis problem, not from-scratch discovery
3 years of unsuccessful self-attempts had snowballed into meta-stuckness: self-doubt about whether she could ever crack it
Hypothesis
If we extract and crystallise the philosophy first, everything downstream (course shape, freebie, journey video, sequencing) collapses into ordinary execution
(and then I can also help with the execution via e.g. gantt charts, regular check-ins, checking in re: “ok this is our plan, does anything still feel aversive? Do these timelines feel right?” etc)
Observable: they can name what they stand for in one sentence; downstream work flows without constant philosophical re-litigation
Outcomes
1 week (2026-04-27)
Philosophy one-pager produced Day 2 (2026-04-21) — the peak moment of week 1; “three years stuck, broken open in two days”
Why it worked: raw material was already internal, just muddled and unexternalised
Plan v1 + Plan v2 drafted; sequencing logic shifted to “philosophy first, order from there”
Identity clarified at Day 6: bridging people from pop-spirituality shallows to deeper wisdom traditions
2 weeks (2026-05-04)
Personal story fully documented (six phases) — raw material for the journey video
Online course reshaped
[Specific topic] fears resolved/made actionable
Discussion of 5-year vision & creation of artefacts to return to
Testimonial interview recorded 2026-04-28 — explicit attribution to philosophy work + continuity of the working relationship (Ediya testimonial interview 2026-04-28)
Decision re: sequencing, next steps, etc
1 month (2026-05-20)
On retainer — sprint outcomes sustained rather than peak-and-fade
[As of 2026-05-22, currently in another sprint which needs much less input from me because of the clarity we achieved from the initial sprint]
3 months (2026-07-20)
Upcoming! Looking forward to various deliverables, an online course, a “personal story” video that had been procrastinated on for years, clarity re: direction for next year-or-more
Notes / reflections
The honest test cleared at the 2-week mark; the retainer is the multi-month evidence that the unstuckness is sustained
Testimonial language to keep: “stuck for 3 years, unstuck in a week”; “I’m not abandoning myself in any of this”; “finding my backbone again”
Key mechanism noted in testimonial: not being credentialed/opinionated worked as a selling point — “you’re not selling me your framework”
(B) Had initial call, week-long sprint to start soon
Client 2:
Outcomes
[redacted until get their permission to write up]
1 week (2026-05-28)
[TODO]
2 weeks (2026-06-04)
[TODO]
1 month (2026-06-21)
[TODO]
3 months (2026-08-21)
[TODO]
Notes / reflections
Two real-time actions on the intro call (they sent messages to acquaintances mid-call) — first motion in the system, good baseline
Two projects to figure out simultaneously: a software invention (potential business) + formalising and writing books
“Hot damn, idk how to do it” — explicit aliveness + stuckness signal
Just emerged from an extended retreat; building new structures
Underlying problems (my hypothesis)
Transition point with no operating structure yet — canonical co-thinking shape (the Ediya pattern)
Two parallel projects competing for the same scarce attention; without a frame to hold both, neither moves
This is the “I know roughly where I’m going, I just don’t have the structure to walk there” flavour, not the “I’m confused about who I am” flavour
Hypothesis
If we sequence the two projects (which thread to pick up first, what shape each takes) and build the operating structure for both, the stuckness collapses into ordinary execution
Observable: concrete next moves on each project, structure in place to keep them both alive
Outcomes
1 week (2026-05-28)
[TODO]
2 weeks (2026-06-04)
[TODO]
1 month (2026-06-21)
[TODO]
3 months (2026-08-21)
[TODO]
Notes / reflections
They flagged the cost/methodology scaling problem themselves on the intro voice note — relevant input for Coaching prerequisites and offering design
(C) Had initial call, pitched on week-long sprint
Client 1: Stuckness due to unclear personal philosophy
E, intro call 2026-05-19, free engagement pending confirmation
Cadence proposed: daily, estimated 1–5 sessions
Presenting symptoms
Wants to settle a recurring habit question — moderate, quit, or stay
All-in or all-out pattern; finds moderation hard
Fears losing the “superpower” the habit gives them in their work
Real concern about long-term physiological cost
Underlying problems (my hypothesis)
Identity-based behaviour change: the habit decision is a window into a larger question — where does their energy and joy actually come from?
Has already felt the substitution work (contemplative practices burning cooler than the habit) — the practice exists, the philosophy doesn’t yet
Maps to the confusion / mental-tangles meta-problem from Meta-problem-solving, specifically the “I haven’t articulated my own philosophy on this” flavour
Hypothesis
If we produce a working philosophy doc (and optionally a behaviour contract they can hold onto), then the next time the question comes back they can re-anchor without re-litigating from scratch
Observable: they stop monthly re-deciding; can name their stance in one sentence