Naming the tree
Naming the tree
Working memo — 1 September 2026. Companion to brand-and-domain-naming.md. Scope: what we call the core object and its uses in everyday communication — not the site name (settled: "Reason Commons") and not the internal LTP tree names (Goal Tree, Current Reality Tree, etc.), which stay as jargon we don't put in front of people.
The object
One structure keeps recurring: a top-level claim — a goal, a thesis, or a question — recursively decomposed into the sub-claims it depends on, where the links between claims are themselves claims ("this one is necessary for that one"). We keep reaching for a name for it and using a different one each time. This settles on a small set.
Candidates
| Term | Strengths | Weaknesses |
|---|---|---|
| Tree of change | Rhymes with "theory of change", which mission-aligned groups already say, so it lands with no explanation. Reads as forward-looking and purposeful. Pairs naturally with "tree of action". | Leans on the theory-of-change reading; slightly less apt for a tree that is a pure question decomposition with no goal at the top. |
| Tree of action | Clean sibling term for the work/plan side — actions hanging off the reasoning that motivates them. | Weak on its own; only makes sense next to "tree of change". |
| Claim tree / tree of claims | Precise: names the actual unit, a claim. Good internal and technical vocabulary; already used across motivation.md and claim-tree-annotation.md. | "Claim" reads as asserted and declarative (David's standing objection); cold for a general audience. Keep it backstage. |
| Tree of thought(s) | Generic, commits to nothing. | Vague — "thought" names nothing in particular. Collides with the "tree of thoughts" LLM-prompting technique, so it mis-cues anyone technical. Weakest option. |
| Issue tree | Established (Minto, consulting); precise for problem decomposition. | Consulting smell; "issue" sounds problem-only, not goals or theses. Fine to cite as heritage, not to adopt as our word. |
Decision
- Tree of change — the primary, front-facing term, for the theory-of-change / thesis tree. When in doubt, this is the phrase.
- Tree of action — its sibling, for the plans and work that hang off the tree of change. Currently scoped as a follow-up (see the 2R talk).
- Claim tree — keep as internal and technical vocabulary for the generic object, consistent with the brand memo's line that "claim" stays as internal working vocabulary even though it is not the brand word.
- Drop "tree of thought". Vague, and it collides with an existing AI term.
- One phrase in front of an audience, not four.
References
brand-and-domain-naming.md— the site name and why "Claim" is not the front-facing brand word.../motivation.md,../claim-tree-annotation.md— the object and the annotation process.../talk/2r-research-group/README.md— first outing of "tree of change" / "tree of action" in a talk.
Appendix — the Logical Thinking Process and how our names map
The Logical Thinking Process (LTP) is H. William Dettmer's systematised version of Goldratt's Theory of Constraints "thinking processes". It is a sequence of six logical structures for taking a messy situation to a defensible plan: define the goal, diagnose the present, find the conflict underneath, design the future, and work out the steps to get there. Every structure is a claim tree in our sense — nodes are claims, links carry logical force (necessity or sufficiency) — with a fixed job in the sequence. Our vocabulary is the genus; the six LTP structures are species.
| LTP structure | What it actually does (plain) | Our name |
|---|---|---|
| Goal Tree (originally Intermediate Objectives Map) | States the goal, then the few critical success factors and necessary conditions it depends on. A hierarchy of necessity. | Tree of change — closest match; ours is the standing thesis about what has to be true |
| Current Reality Tree | Cause-and-effect map of the present: traces the symptoms you can see down to a few root causes. | no front-facing name; the "what is blocking us now" view |
| Evaporating Cloud (Conflict Resolution Diagram) | Surfaces the hidden dilemma under a root cause and the assumption holding it together, so the conflict can be dissolved. "Evaporating" because the conflict disappears once a false assumption is broken. | no front-facing name; the "conflict" beat |
| Future Reality Tree | Cause-and-effect map of the proposed future: checks that the planned changes produce the effects you want, without bad side branches. | folded into tree of change — the future being aimed at |
| Prerequisite Tree | The obstacles between here and a change, and the intermediate objectives that clear them. | tree of action (with the Transition Tree) |
| Transition Tree | The step-by-step plan: specific actions, in sequence, each with its expected effect. | tree of action |
The 2R material in docs/ltp_trees/ currently uses five of the six — Goal, Current Reality, Conflict Resolution, Future Reality, Prerequisite — with no Transition Tree built yet.
Why our names, for external use
- The LTP names are precise for practitioners and opaque to everyone else. "Evaporating Cloud" is memorable but tells you nothing on first contact; "Current Reality Tree" and "Transition Tree" are literal but bureaucratic. They are a matched set that only pays off once you have adopted the whole method.
- Our audience has no LTP background and is deciding whether to engage at all. A name has to communicate on contact. "Tree of change" borrows language they already use ("theory of change"); "tree of action" explains itself.
- We front-brand two names against LTP's six. Less vocabulary to hold, which is the same principle as the brand memo: borrow the rigour without requiring the vocabulary.
- This is not a knock on the LTP names. They are good mnemonics inside the method, and the method's rigour is exactly what we are taking. We just do not make people learn it to get the idea.
