Toolkit · Fit Filter

Consultation Fit Filter

Five questions. Self-routing. No data leaves this page.

This filter sits between consultations and the calendar. It exists because most "could you consult on…" requests are not actually a fit for the consultation tier — they're a fit for the substrate, or they're outside what the practice does. The filter sorts the request before any of your time or Kevin's gets spent.

It is the framework reading your answers back to you, not Kevin grading them. The routing is rule-based and transparent. You can see exactly what each answer points to.

Before you start: read the commons-work paragraph on the consult page. The arrangement is named there. This filter assumes you've read it.

Question 1 · Whose infrastructure

What are you bringing to the engagement?

The framework operates when a practitioner with a body that can discriminate is doing the building. It does not operate on behalf of an absent practitioner.

I'm building my own infrastructure and want a structural read of where I am. I have a body of my own work (manuscript, framework, plan) I want read through the lens. I want Kevin to build, design, or implement something for me or my organization. I want Kevin's expertise applied to our team without a single practitioner doing the somatic work.

Question 2 · Substrate engagement

What have you already read or used from the substrate?

A consultation starts at depth, not at "tell me about your work." That requires the substrate to have entered you first.

I've read the manuscript or the Meta-Tetrahedron and have specific reactions to specific parts. I've engaged with at least one essay or run the RI Kit; ready to go deeper. I've seen Kevin's work pass through my feed but haven't engaged with the substrate yet. I'm new to all of this.

Question 3 · Your ask

How would you describe what you actually want?

If you can't name an outcome, you're not ready for a consultation — you're ready for the substrate. That's not a failure; it's information.

I have a named situation, decision, or piece of my work I want structurally read. I have a body of my own work I want returned to me as a written structural read. I'd love to pick Kevin's brain. Talk shop. Get to know each other. I'm in acute crisis and need help fast.

Question 4 · What you leave with

What do you expect to take from the engagement?

A consultation returns a structural read in the framework's terms — a diagnosis you can act on. Patterns from the work feed back into public substrate, generalized and stripped of you. What you leave with is yours; the pattern travels.

A structural read of my situation or work — something I can act on myself. Exclusive or proprietary analysis that doesn't reach anyone else. Validation or co-signing of a decision I've already made. I'm not sure yet.

Question 5 · The commons-work arrangement

The default: your specifics stay private; general patterns may circulate, generalized and anonymized, in published work. How does that land?

Read the full arrangement first if you haven't. The redaction discipline is built into the work, not added at the end. You can veto any specific pattern; Kevin won't ask why.

I understand and consent. Patterns may circulate; my specifics stay private. I haven't read the arrangement yet. I'd want a custom NDA blocking the integration of any pattern from our work into public substrate. I have concerns and would want to negotiate the terms before booking.

Five questions remaining.

Outcome · Fit

This looks like a fit for the consultation tier.

You're building your own infrastructure, you have substrate to ground the conversation in, you have a named ask, the exchange is for sustainability, and you consent to the commons-work arrangement. The framework can do its work here.

The next step is the 30-minute initial consultation.

If intake is closed (see current state), or if booking doesn't work for you, the request page has the email address to reach Kevin directly.

Booking takes no money — the engagement and the donation rail run on separate channels by design. The 30-min initial scopes the work; follow-ups happen if the work wants them.

What you bring: the specific situation or body of work you named. What you leave with: a structural read in the framework's terms. Not a plan. Not a deliverable. A diagnosis you can act on yourself.

Outcome · Substrate first

This sounds like a fit for the substrate, not the consultation tier yet.

The framework only operates when there's ground for it to rest on. Right now the gap is substrate engagement, a named ask, or both. That's not a refusal — it's the fit filter doing its job.

Two routes from here:

Library — start with the manuscript, the Meta-Tetrahedron, or whichever essay title made something in you pause.
Toolkits — run the RI Kit or Quick Diagnostic on your own situation. The kit does most of what a single consultation would, for free.

When you have a specific question grounded in some of the substrate, come back to this filter. The consultation tier will still be here.

Outcome · Outside the consultation tier

What you're describing is outside what this tier does.

Refusal as information, not judgment. The arrangement at this tier is structurally specific; what you're asking for is structurally different. Naming the mismatch is the filter doing its work.

Possible reasons for this outcome:

Crisis-driven urgency — please reach for actual crisis support. The framework is not a crisis service and treating it as one would harm both you and the work.
Implementation for an organization — outside the practice. The framework only operates when a named practitioner with somatic ground is doing the work.
Validation of a pre-made decision — refused. The framework reads structure; it does not co-sign decisions.
Proprietary access or NDA-protected work — categorical refusal. Kevin works for the commons; the patterns the framework reads in your situation flow back into public substrate, generalized and anonymized. The arrangement isn't negotiable; it's what the work is.

If any of these don't apply, the substrate is still gift either way. The Library is free to use, the Toolkits are free to run, and the Refusals page names what the practice doesn't do, in case the structural read helps.