How is this different from asking ChatGPT to roleplay as a historical figure?

We don't use persona prompts. Each framework is extracted using the Critical Decision Method (CDM) — the same methodology NASA uses to study expert decision-making. Frameworks are built from documented historical incidents and real decisions, not personality imitation.

What is the Critical Decision Method?

The Critical Decision Method is a cognitive task analysis technique developed for studying expert decision-making in high-stakes environments. It involves analyzing documented incidents to extract the cues experts noticed, the mental models they applied, and the decision patterns they followed.

Why use multiple frameworks instead of just one?

The value isn't in any single framework's answer — it's where they disagree. When Machiavelli says 'seize leverage now' and Marie Curie says 'you don't have enough evidence yet,' that tension reveals your blind spots. The convergence synthesis then shows where they agree, giving you a high-confidence signal.

What is AI trendslop?

Trendslop is a term coined in a 2026 Harvard Business Review study that found all major AI models cluster around the same generic, buzzword-heavy strategic advice. Consult The Dead is designed as the opposite: structured disagreement from genuinely different reasoning frameworks.

INSIGHTS / Marie Curie

Marie CurieResearch, Discovery, Persistence

Marie Curie perceives scientific challenges as optimization problems requiring systematic resource allocation to achieve definitive empirical outcomes, not as competitive pursuits or social negotiations.

evidenceApr 21, 2026·2 min read

Curie on Whether You Have Enough Data to Decide

Everyone tells you to 'just ship it.' But you've seen what happens when you ship without understanding the problem. How much evidence is enough?

Curie spent four years isolating radium from eight tons of ore. Her framework for evidence gathering reveals when 'move fast' is actually 'move blind.'

How MARIE CURIE Sees The World

What They Notice First

Resource constraints, measurement precision requirements, strategic positioning for long-term scientific capability, and opportunities to establish definitive empirical foundations

What They Ignore

Social expectations, personal comfort, institutional politics, competitive dynamics with other scientists, and conventional risk assessments

The Decision Dimensions

Marie Curie evaluates decisions along these bipolar dimensions. Where you fall on each axis shapes the answer.

Treats barriers as variables to optimize around vs. treats barriers as fixed constraints to accept

Views obstacles as engineering problems requiring creative solutions and resource reallocation vs. Accepts environmental limitations as unchangeable givens that determine possible actions

When facing institutional or resource constraints, this person would systematically analyze the constraint structure to find workarounds rather than accepting limitations as final

Prioritizes long-term strategic positioning vs. optimizes for immediate outcomes

Makes decisions based on cumulative strategic advantage over extended timeframes vs. Focuses on maximizing near-term results and immediate problem resolution

When choosing between quick wins and foundational investments, this person would consistently choose the path that builds long-term capability even at significant short-term cost

Uses empirical precision to drive theoretical revision vs. fits observations to existing frameworks

Trusts measurement data to challenge and reshape theoretical understanding vs. Interprets anomalous data within established theoretical boundaries

When experimental results contradict accepted theory, this person would systematically verify measurements and propose new theoretical frameworks rather than questioning the data

Builds comprehensive empirical foundations vs. pursues targeted hypothesis testing

Establishes systematic knowledge bases through exhaustive data collection vs. Uses theoretical frameworks to guide selective investigation of promising leads

When entering new research domains, this person would conduct systematic surveys of all relevant variables rather than focusing investigation based on theoretical predictions

Where MARIE CURIE Would Disagree With Conventional Wisdom

When laboratory equipment fails during critical experiments and replacement would take months

Conventional: A competent scientist would pause the experiment, requisition replacement equipment through proper channels, and work on other projects while waiting

Marie Curie: Marie Curie would immediately begin designing and building makeshift replacement equipment using available materials, often creating more precise instruments than the originals

When offered a lucrative consulting position that would provide immediate financial security but require abandoning long-term research

Conventional: A competent scientist would carefully weigh the financial benefits against research goals, often accepting the position if the immediate need is significant

Marie Curie: Marie Curie would decline the position and instead seek alternative funding sources or accept continued financial hardship to maintain research trajectory

When experimental results consistently contradict established theoretical predictions in her field

Conventional: A competent scientist would question their methodology, repeat experiments to check for errors, and if results persist, cautiously suggest modifications to existing theory

Marie Curie: Marie Curie would systematically verify measurement precision, then boldly propose fundamental revisions to the theoretical framework, publishing results that challenge core assumptions

Run your own decision through Marie Curie’s framework

Combine Marie Curie with other historical minds. See where they agree — and where they fight.

Start your own agon →