Three-Question Rule-Breaking Test
Decide whether a business rule deserves to survive, change, or disappear
- Difficulty
- Easy
- Time to result
- ~days to results
- Steps
- 5
- Confidence
- 97%
The Three-Question Rule-Breaking Test evaluates a convention through purpose, risk, and present relevance. Begin by determining why the rule was created: it may protect safety, satisfy a legal requirement, or merely preserve an outdated practice. Then estimate what could happen if you break it, including harm to customers, reputation, operations, or legal standing, and compare those costs with the possible strategic reward. Finally, ask whether the rule still solves its original problem under current market conditions. Together, the questions separate useful constraints from obsolete habits. A rule with severe downside and continuing relevance should remain; a low-risk rule whose context has disappeared may be modified or tested. The output is an informed decision to keep, adapt, experiment with, or retire the practice.
Origin
Jasmine Star presented this decision test to help listeners select the right business rules to challenge after adopting the Rule Breaker Mindset. Extracted from The Jasmine Star Show.
Core principles
- 01A rule should be understood before it is challenged.
- 02Original purpose matters when judging present usefulness.
- 03Potential reward must justify the material risk.
- 04Changing conditions can make formerly useful rules obsolete.
- 05Legal and safety consequences outweigh novelty or attention.
How to run it
- 1
Define the Rule
Write the rule in specific language so you can evaluate the actual constraint rather than a vague frustration. Note where it came from and who currently follows it.
Pro tip Distinguish a genuine requirement from a habit that people merely describe as a rule.
Watch out Do not begin with the assumption that every established practice is obsolete.
- 2
Find Its Original Purpose
Determine whether the rule was created for safety, legality, consistency, market reach, or another objective. Understanding the original reasoning reveals what must still be protected.
Pro tip Ask what failure or undesirable outcome the rule was designed to prevent.
Watch out If the purpose involves law or safety, obtain appropriate expert guidance before proceeding.
- 3
Assess Risk and Reward
List plausible harms from breaking the rule and compare them with the potential gains. Consider customers, reputation, finances, operations, and legal exposure.
Pro tip Separate discomfort and criticism from consequences that could materially damage the business.
Watch out Do not let an attractive upside obscure a low-probability but catastrophic downside.
- 4
Test Current Necessity
Check whether the original problem, audience, technology, or market environment still exists. Decide whether the rule remains necessary in its current form.
Pro tip Look for evidence that customer behavior or market structure has changed since the rule became common.
Watch out A changed environment may call for modifying a rule rather than eliminating it.
- 5
Choose the Treatment
Keep rules that remain valuable, modify those that are partly useful, test alternatives to uncertain rules, and retire conventions that no longer serve their purpose. Document the expected outcome before changing anything.
Pro tip Use a small reversible experiment when the answer remains uncertain.
Watch out Do not present an experimental exception as a universal new rule.
In the wild
A faith-based marketing coach evaluates the convention that businesses should never discuss controversial subjects online. The rule once helped brands appeal to broad audiences, but targeted social marketing now rewards relevance to a specific ideal client. Discussing faith might alienate some people, yet it could deepen trust and differentiation among the clients the coach is built to serve.
→ The coach can intentionally discuss faith because the audience-alignment rewards plausibly outweigh the manageable risks.
Common mistakes
Ignoring the Rule's Protective Purpose
A frustrating rule may exist to prevent legal, safety, or customer harm. Removing it without investigating its origin can recreate the problem it solved.
Counting Discomfort as Catastrophe
Fear of negative comments can distort the assessment if it is treated as equivalent to legal trouble or lasting reputational damage. Risks should be classified by severity and likelihood.
Using an Outdated Market Assumption
A rule designed for mass-market appeal may be counterproductive in a targeted market. Evaluate the current audience and environment rather than relying on historical convention.
Is it for you?
Best for
It is best for evaluating inherited best practices, marketing conventions, internal processes, and industry norms.
Not ideal for
It is not a substitute for professional legal, regulatory, safety, or compliance advice.
From the transcript
“Question number one what's the rules? Original purpose.”
“So question number two what is the risk and is it worth it?”
From the episode
When You Should “Break the Rules” in Your Business