> With quality bars in hand, [[Methodology|methodology]] becomes a matching problem rather than a guess. This act takes each cluster from the previous act and commits to a method that satisfies its non-negotiables. It closes with three named decisions: > 1. which approach for which cluster > 2. which clusters to start with > 3. and who is on the hook for each. ^purpose The act works from the room's own clusters, not from a pre-loaded taxonomy. For each cluster the facilitator presses the same three questions: what method satisfies its non-negotiables, what is the one requirement most at risk if that method is adopted imperfectly, and who is the steward who will be held to it. Reference patterns exist and the facilitator carries them in their back pocket - but they are offered only if the room asks for an example, never as the structuring frame. A method that emerges from the room's own pains in the room's own language survives Monday morning; one chosen from an outside menu rarely does. ^method The act is explicitly decisional. The pain map and quality bars are already known - this act does not revisit them. It closes with implementation principles: statements the organisation commits to regardless of which tool is eventually chosen. **You leave with:** - An agreed method per cluster - what approach, and why - A [[minimum viable scope]] - the clusters to start with, chosen by cost of failure - Implementation principles - the commitments that survive any tool change - Named owners for each cluster - the people walking out with a concrete to-do and the authority to [[Lead by example]] ^outcomes ## Examples of methods matched here 1. [[Second brain example - personal notes|Second brain (personal notes)]] ![[Second brain example - personal notes#^method-line]] 2. [[Shared second brain example - ADR log|Shared second brain (ADR log)]] ![[Shared second brain example - ADR log#^method-line]]