## Committee Discussion: The Heart of Our Terminology **Scott Stern**: Before we lock in "belief structure," let's ensure we've found le mot juste. The term carries our entire theoretical edifice. I propose three alternatives: "uncertainty architecture," "promise framework," and "conviction topology." Each illuminates different facets of what entrepreneurs actually design. **Charlie Fine**: _pragmatically_ "Promise framework" speaks directly to practitioners. Every entrepreneur understands promises—to investors, customers, employees. It's concrete, actionable. When I tell executives about Tesla's promises evolving from vague aspirations to specific commitments, they immediately grasp the operational implications. **Vikash Mansinghka**: But "promise" reduces our insight to communication. What we're describing transcends mere promises—it's the entire probabilistic scaffolding that shapes how ventures navigate possibility space. "Uncertainty architecture" better captures this meta-level design. Entrepreneurs aren't just making promises; they're constructing entire edifices of organized uncertainty. **Moshe Ben-Akiva**: _measured_ Each term implies different theoretical commitments. "Belief structure" suggests cognitive science roots—how mental models organize. "Uncertainty architecture" emphasizes the design dimension. "Promise framework" grounds us in observable behavior. "Conviction topology"—while mathematically evocative—might prove too abstract for our audience. **Scott**: The topology metaphor intrigues me, though. It captures how different levels of conviction create peaks and valleys in the entrepreneurial landscape. High precision creates sharp peaks—difficult to descend from. Low precision maintains rolling hills—easier navigation. **Charlie**: _shaking head_ That's precisely why it fails. Topology sounds like pure theory. Our contribution must bridge theory and practice. "Promise framework" does that elegantly. Every entrepreneur makes promises; we're showing how to architect them consciously. **Vikash**: Yet "framework" feels static, structural. What we're describing is fundamentally dynamic—entrepreneurs continuously reshape these architectures as they learn. Perhaps that's why "uncertainty architecture" resonates. Architecture implies both structure and evolution, blueprint and building. **Moshe**: Consider the mathematical formalism. Beta(μτ, (1-μ)τ) describes a distribution—neither merely a promise nor a framework, but a structured way of organizing uncertainty. "Belief structure" captures this probabilistic essence without overcommitting to implementation details. **Scott**: _thoughtfully_ What troubles me about "belief structure" is its internal focus. Entrepreneurship involves coordinating collective action. These aren't just internal beliefs but shared constructions that align stakeholders. **Charlie**: Exactly why "promise framework" works. Promises inherently involve others. They're social contracts that create shared futures. **Vikash**: But we lose the probabilistic sophistication. Entrepreneurs aren't just promising—they're designing entire possibility spaces. "Uncertainty architecture" maintains that sophistication while remaining accessible. Everyone understands architecture as conscious design. **Moshe**: _synthesizing_ Perhaps our struggle reveals something deeper. We're describing something that operates simultaneously at multiple levels—cognitive (beliefs), social (promises), mathematical (distributions), and strategic (architecture). No single term perfectly captures this multiplicity. **Scott**: _decisive_ Then we should choose the term that best serves our theoretical contribution while remaining accessible. "Uncertainty architecture" achieves both. It immediately signals that uncertainty isn't just context but material—something to be shaped, designed, crafted. It distinguishes our contribution from traditional frameworks that treat uncertainty as external constraint. **Charlie**: _warming to it_ And it preserves the practical implications. Architects must balance aesthetics with function, vision with constraints. That's exactly what entrepreneurs do with uncertainty. **Vikash**: The mathematical interpretation remains clean too. We're describing how entrepreneurs architect probability distributions that serve multiple functions—mobilizing resources while preserving adaptability. **Moshe**: _nodding_ "Uncertainty architecture" also scales beautifully across our framework. The four constraints become architectural principles. Precision management becomes architectural refinement. The Tesla-Nikola contrast illustrates different architectural philosophies. **Scott**: Shall we vote? All in favor of "uncertainty architecture" as our central terminology? **All**: _unanimous agreement_ **Charlie**: One implementation note—we should introduce it carefully. Perhaps: "Entrepreneurs succeed by designing what we term uncertainty architectures—structured ways of organizing ambiguity that mobilize collective action while preserving adaptive capacity." **Vikash**: Yes, and we can still reference promises and beliefs as components within these architectures. The terminology encompasses rather than excludes. --- ### Refined MELODY with Chosen Terminology **Entrepreneurs succeed not by minimizing uncertainty but by architecting it**: designing uncertainty architectures—structured organizations of ambiguity that mobilize collective action while preserving adaptive capacity—a fundamental reconceptualization revealed through the precision paradox (early specificity kills ventures) and operationalized through four interconnected constraints that shape the design space within which all ventures navigate.