Frameworks

A 6-factor weighted scoring model for crypto markets. Rather than producing a single directional call, it builds independent bull and bear cases (each scored 0–100), then computes the spread between them. The spread determines conviction level: ≥15 is High Conviction, 3–15 is Moderate, <3 is Neutral. The framework removes emotion from the analysis entirely — there is no "feeling" about the market, only a weighted score across six factors (Daily Pattern 30%, Volume 25%, Timeframe Alignment 20%, Technical Confluence 15%, Market Timing 10%, Risk Context as a gate).

Knox has run this framework live for 7+ years, producing 82.5% accuracy across BTC, ETH, SOL, and XRP. The framework now powers PolyEdge — an automated Polymarket trading bot that scores binary options markets and places bets autonomously when conviction thresholds are met. InDecision doesn't predict direction. It identifies when the probability distribution is sufficiently skewed to justify a bet.

Colonel John Boyd's decision cycle — Observe, Orient, Decide, Act — was developed for fighter pilot combat but applies universally to any competitive environment. The key insight most people miss: Orient is the most critical and most neglected step. Orient is where you construct your mental model from observed data. A corrupt or incomplete mental model produces bad decisions even from perfect observation. Boyd's thesis: the competitor who cycles through the loop faster wins, regardless of resources.

Knox applies the OODA Loop at three levels. In markets: InDecision IS the Orient step, formalized. The framework constructs a structured mental model from raw market data so decisions can be made without cognitive interference. In engineering teams: the team with the fastest feedback loop (CI/CD, test coverage, observability) outperforms regardless of team size. In trading: the edge is not in the signal — it's in acting on the signal before the crowd finishes orienting. Speed through the loop is the compounding advantage.

An economics concept describing the misalignment of incentives between a principal (who delegates authority) and an agent (who acts on their behalf). The agent has information the principal lacks and may act in their own interest rather than the principal's. Classic examples: employee vs. employer, fund manager vs. investor, contractor vs. client. The problem is not solved by surveillance — it's solved by realigning incentives so agent self-interest and principal interest converge.

Most engineering team dysfunction is a principal-agent problem in disguise. Engineers optimize for what gets them recognized — shipping features, landing promotions, appearing busy. The system needs something different: reliability, test coverage, technical debt reduction, architectural integrity. Pressure-based management cannot fix this. What fixes it is incentive redesign: measure, recognize, and reward what the system actually needs. Knox applies this lens to team structure, performance frameworks, and architectural decision authority.

From On War: every adversary has a center of gravity — the hub of all power and movement, on which everything depends. Destroy or neutralize the CoG and the system collapses. Misidentify it and you spend resources attacking peripheral targets that have no leverage on the outcome. Clausewitz's insight is ruthlessly practical: before you act, you must correctly identify what actually matters. Everything else is noise.

Knox applies CoG analysis to competitive intelligence (what is this company's actual CoG? Often not what they advertise — it may be a key customer relationship, a specific engineer, or a regulatory moat), to markets (price is rarely the CoG — sentiment, liquidity, and leverage positioning usually are), and to geopolitical analysis (TSMC is Taiwan's CoG and simultaneously the global semiconductor supply chain's CoG; the Strait of Hormuz is Iran's asymmetric leverage lever). This framework appears regularly in Knox's world-news analysis.