Who actually owns the downside?
This frame evaluates whether an individual, company, or system is building durable leverage — or operating inside a dependency where rules, economics, or access can be changed unilaterally.
Most people focus on upside first.
They optimize growth, reach, distribution, or efficiency without examining who controls the interface, the rules, or the constraints underneath that upside.
Dependency often looks attractive early because it accelerates results. The cost only becomes visible when conditions change.
Leverage exists when outcomes improve disproportionately with scale, while downside remains bounded or optional.
Dependency exists when upside is shared but downside is asymmetric — especially when another party can alter terms, access, or visibility at will.
This frame applies whenever success depends on an external system, platform, intermediary, or gatekeeper — especially in periods of technological transition.
It is foundational in evaluating media, technology platforms, marketplaces, capital structures, and AI-mediated visibility.
This frame is less relevant when outcomes are fully controlled, incentives are symmetric, and exit costs are low.
In those cases, optimization and execution matter more than structural positioning.
Dependency vs. Leverage establishes the structural landscape. Timing Asymmetry determines when to act within that landscape. Signal vs. Narrative filters noise that obscures real dependency.
If leverage is absent, timing and signal discipline become critical to preserving optionality.