How to Build Your Cognitive Council

After sharing "The Death of the Linear Leader," seventeen people asked the same question: "How do I actually set this up?"

I'll show you.

How This Started

Scaling global teams pushed me beyond my biological limits. To handle the pressure, I had to build a system that aligned with my internal logic. It was a way to avoid rewriting myself just to be understood.

That architecture finally allowed me to share my vision, so my team could lead alongside me. If you are ready to move from a linear habit to a Cognitive Council*, here is exactly how to set it up.

The Council takes its seat. You take the controls. Moving beyond 2D prompting to build a Cognitive Exoskeleton for multidimensional judgment.

What You Need

Access to Claude, Gemini, ChatGPT, or another capable model, and a willingness to use it differently. Rather than simply asking questions and moving on, you will teach the system your thought process so it can collaborate with you.

This takes time. Not months, but more than one prompt. You are building a relationship with the tool, not just extracting information. You are setting the technical plumbing for your own mind.

The Foundation: Three Perspectives

Start with three council members and tailor their roles to your needs. If you are naturally optimistic, include a Realist rather than a Provocateur. If you are risk-averse, select someone who encourages bold decisions. The council should challenge, not reinforce, your default tendencies. It should create disagreement.

• The Brand Philosopher. Their role is to maintain coherence over time. They are responsible for questioning momentum. If a competitor’s actions make your strategy seem slow, the Brand Philosopher assesses whether increased speed aligns with your goals. When establishing this role, specify what they are protecting: your reputation for quality, your positioning as a premium option, or your commitment to specific standards. Give them a constitution to defend.
  

• The Creative Provocateur. Their role is to ensure the work remains authentically yours. They focus on distinctiveness rather than whether something is "good enough." If your output matches industry standards, the Provocateur will point out that you are becoming a commodity. This perspective helps prevent the mediocrity that results from prioritizing acceptance over impact.
  

• The Ethical Reflection. Their role is to raise the questions you may be avoiding. They map the secondary effects that are invisible under pressure or through a single expert’s lens. While you are focused on the win, the Reflection clarifies what is being sacrificed in the shadows, allowing you to assess whether the trade-off is actually worth the cost.

  
  

How the Debate Works

Let's make a hiring decision.

You are choosing between two candidates for a senior role. Candidate A is experienced, presents lower risk, and will integrate quickly. Candidate B has fewer credentials but brings a perspective your team lacks. Hiring Candidate B may create tension within your current structure. You probably already have a gut feeling. But watch what happens when the council creates a collision:

Brand Philosopher: "We have said for three years that we are the place where unconventional thinkers belong. If we keep hiring for quick fit, we are not that workplace. We are the place that talks about diversity of thought but chooses comfort."

Creative Provocateur: "Candidate A will never challenge our thinking. If we are serious about evolving, we need someone who makes us uncomfortable. Otherwise, we are just implementing the same strategy more efficiently, and building a faster version of a dead end."

Ethical Reflection: "Candidate B will face resistance. Are we prepared to actively support them, or are we setting them up to fail while we congratulate ourselves for being bold?"

This is 3D Resolution*. You didn’t get a recommendation; you got a multidimensional check. You might realize that Candidate A is a band-aid, Candidate B is a sacrificial lamb, and the real choice is to hire neither. You might realize the role itself is the problem.

The Council didn't make the choice for you. It cleared the mental load of your own biases so you could finally see that neither option was right. That is the difference between a bot giving you a list and a Council giving you dimensionality.

The Expertise Multiplier

A council does not replace your expertise; it acts as a Cognitive Exoskeleton* for it. For a junior strategist, the council helps identify gaps in 2D logic early. It allows them to intentionally develop sound judgment by forcing them to see variables they would otherwise overlook. They begin to recognize 3D Resolution* patterns in months rather than years.

For the expert, the council expands capacity. It allows you to test your intuition in unfamiliar territory and manage a much higher volume than biological memory alone permits. Think of competitive chess. A novice using these tools won't play like a Grandmaster, but they will find the possibilities they previously missed. A Grandmaster uses those same tools to explore new territory and discern which options are most significant. The council accelerates learning for the junior and broadens horizons for the expert.

Teaching the System

The initial sessions may feel awkward, as the council will not yet understand your context. You will need to provide the "plumbing" as you work together. If the Brand Philosopher offers advice that is not aligned, you clarify: "No. We built our reputation on reliability, not innovation. Adjust." If the Reflection raises a concern that does not reflect your priorities, you specify: "That's not the trade I'm worried about. I'm concerned with accessibility here." Over time, the council will learn your language. This comes from pattern recognition and your active guidance.

What Breaks It

• Seeking Consensus: If the council always supports your instincts, it has not been trained effectively. Its value lies in constructive disagreement.
  

• The "Post-Decision" Consult: Using the council to justify a decision already made is performative busywork. Their value is in informing decisions while they are still in 3D Resolution*.
  

• Avoiding Friction Under Pressure: The instinct is to rely on intuition under stress, but this is when judgment is most likely to be compromised by ego or momentum.
  

• Expecting Speed: A productive session may take twenty minutes. If you are unwilling to invest this time, you are managing tasks rather than making thoughtful decisions.
  

What Comes Next

Right now, you build a council inside one model. You train Gemini or ChatGPT to hold three perspectives. You pilot the debate.

The next step is the Synthetic Collision*. This involves model councils debating model councils. Claude's council argues with ChatGPT's council. Gemini's council challenges both. Each model brings different training and different reasoning patterns. You watch the collision and see what none of them saw.

I already work this way. When you let models challenge each other, the results go beyond what any single system can produce. But that's for another essay.

The Pilot's Return

Linear thinking was effective when problems were simpler. It is no longer sufficient. You can keep trying to fulfill every role: visionary, builder, or strategist, and risk burnout and irrelevance. Or you can develop a system that carries out the analysis while you provide direction.

The Council does not replace your judgment; it provides the Linguistic Scaffolding* required to see the big picture in high resolution. You are still the Pilot, but now you can actually see what you're steering toward.

We spent decades forcing humans to be efficient and predictable. Now we have synthetic reasoning to handle that burden. What's left is the only thing that matters: your judgment.

What decision are you currently facing that would benefit from three different ways of being right?

Start there.

---

In Plain English

• Cognitive Council*: A set of AI personas you train to argue with you and each other from specific angles so you do not miss anything.

• Cognitive Exoskeleton*: A system that carries the mental load of logic and data. Like an Iron Man suit, it gives your judgment more power and reach.

• Linguistic Scaffolding*: Using AI to help you find the structure for a complex idea that is currently just a gut feeling.

• 3D Resolution*: The ability to see a problem from multiple conflicting sides at once to find the most robust path forward.

• Synthetic Collision*: Having different AI models, like Claude and ChatGPT, debate each other to uncover blind spots that a single system would miss.

P.S. I hope you read this essay first.