When does acting early create advantage — and when does waiting create leverage?
Timing Asymmetry evaluates whether time is working for you or against you, and whether delay increases optionality or silently erodes it.
Most people confuse activity with progress.
They assume being early is always good, being late is always bad, and that constant motion signals competence.
In reality, premature action often locks in disadvantage, while patience can allow asymmetry to compound quietly.
Timing is asymmetric when the cost of being wrong early is high, but the cost of being late is low — or reversible.
Advantage comes from acting when uncertainty collapses, not from maximizing exposure while uncertainty is still unresolved.
This frame applies when decisions are irreversible, capital is being committed, or reputation becomes path-dependent.
It is especially critical during technological transitions, market regime shifts, and moments of institutional uncertainty.
Timing Asymmetry matters less when decisions are easily reversible, feedback loops are fast, and downside is capped.
In those environments, speed and iteration dominate.
Dependency vs. Leverage defines whether waiting is even an option. Signal vs. Narrative determines whether perceived urgency is real.
When leverage exists and signal is clear, timing becomes decisive. When either is absent, patience preserves optionality.