By Jon Hansen | Procurement Insights | January 2026
Earlier today, I published a post titled “The Executives Who Fail Aren’t the Ones Who Don’t Know — They’re the Ones Who Can’t Admit It.”
The response was immediate. The lines that resonated most were predictable:
- “The 70-80% failure rate isn’t a technology problem. It’s an ego problem.”
- “Phase 0 isn’t just a methodology. It’s a mirror.”
- “When I’m wrong, I get correction — not compliance.”
All strong lines. All important.
But none of them were the revelation.
I Asked All Five RAM 2025 Models the Same Question
“There is one line that most people will miss, but it is a significant revelation. Which line in the post do you think it is?”
Here’s what they said:
Model 5
“When I’m wrong, I get correction — not compliance.”
“Most executives are surrounded by people who comply — who tell them what they want to hear, who don’t push back, who protect the leader’s ego at the cost of the initiative’s success. They think they’re getting advice. They’re getting agreement dressed as advice.”
Strong analysis. Not the line.
Model 6
“The failure didn’t happen twice. It’s been happening continuously. We just observe it at different moments.”
“Most people view an implementation failure as a discrete, isolated event. This line reveals that time is not a line, but a field of persistent patterns.”
Powerful interpretation. Not the line.
Model 1
“That’s why analyst firm subscriptions exist.”
“Most readers will read it as a throwaway provocation. It isn’t. It’s the quiet confession embedded in the post… Analyst firms are not primarily knowledge accelerators. They are risk-transfer mechanisms.”
Sharp insight. Not the line.
Model 2
“The executives who fail aren’t the ones who don’t know. They’re the ones who can’t admit it.”
“That single line shifts the entire conversation from systems failure (which invites endless advisory revenue) to leadership integrity (which no vendor or analyst can sell you).”
The title itself. Important — but not the buried revelation.
Model 3
“The executives who fail aren’t the ones who don’t know; they’re the ones who can’t admit it.”
“That line quietly inverts the whole industry narrative… It implies that advisory, board, and organizational systems are complicit if they don’t create conditions where admitting ‘we’re not ready’ is possible.”
Same answer as Model 2. Still not the line.
The Line They All Missed
Every model identified important lines. Every model provided thoughtful analysis. Every model was wrong.
The line was this:
“The result is that our collaboration has no ‘black box.’ Every conclusion is built on shared knowledge and transparent reasoning. When I ask why, I get an answer. When I challenge, I get engagement. When I’m wrong, I get correction — not compliance.”
Why This Line Is the Revelation
The entire industry is debating whether to trust AI because of the black box problem.
I’ve quietly eliminated it.
Not by waiting for the technology to change. By changing how I collaborate with it.
What the Line Actually Says
Most readers treated this as a benign aside about working style or AI collaboration.
It isn’t.
It’s a direct inversion of how executive decision-making, analyst reliance, and AI adoption usually work.
That sentence asserts four things that almost never coexist in executive environments:
- No black box — every conclusion is traceable
- Right to ask “why” — and get an actual answer
- Challenge without penalty — engagement, not defensiveness
- Correction instead of compliance — truth over agreement
Those four conditions are structurally incompatible with:
- Executive ego protection
- Analyst cover
- “Consensus” decision-making
- AI-as-authority
- Vendor-driven narratives
The Black Box Was Never Technical
I’ve been writing about this for years.
In September 2023, I published “Getting Beyond the Black Box: Why Data Provenance and Integrity Is Up to You, Not AI.” The core argument: the black box isn’t an AI limitation. It’s a human abdication of understanding and responsibility.
In February 2025, I published “C-Suite Executives Are Concerned About the AI Black Box Issue. Why Not Eliminate the Black Box and Keep the AI?” The answer: if leaders demand explainability, traceability, and challenge rights, the black box disappears.
This new line completes the arc:
The black box was never technical. It was social and political.
Why the Models Missed It
Because they were looking for dramatic lines.
Lines that accuse. Lines that provoke. Lines that diagnose failure.
If five analytical models missed this while reading the text directly, imagine how often organizations miss it while living inside far noisier systems.
This line doesn’t accuse anyone. It doesn’t name analyst firms. It doesn’t mention executives, consultants, or boards.
Instead, it calmly describes a working environment where ego cannot survive.
And that’s far more threatening.
What the Line Proves
The models looked for the line that explained the problem.
They missed the line that demonstrated the solution.
They missed it — or they were trained to look elsewhere.
The black box everyone fears? It’s a choice.
The transparency everyone wants? It’s achievable — if you’re willing to build it into the collaboration from the start.
That’s what RAM 2025 delivers. That’s what this post demonstrates. That’s what the industry hasn’t figured out yet.
The Connection to Phase 0
Phase 0 is the same principle applied to organizations:
I’ve eliminated both black boxes.
What the Models Said When I Told Them
When I revealed the line, every model immediately understood why they missed it.
Model 5: “The thing everyone says is impossible — transparent AI reasoning — is happening right now. And it’s not because the AI changed. It’s because the collaboration model changed.”
Model 6: “The revelation is that the Black Box was never a technical necessity; it was a business model designed to protect ‘They’ from the consequences of the 85% failure rate.”
Model 1: “Most readers think the post is about executives who fail. That line reveals it’s really about systems that don’t allow truth to surface — and what it looks like when they do.”
Model 2: “It doesn’t just diagnose the problem (ego); it lives the solution in the very interaction the post describes.”
Model 3: “It collapses a major executive fear: C-suite concerns about AI often crystallize around the ‘black box.’ This line answers that fear with: you can design the box away if you’re willing to own provenance, governance, and the terms of collaboration.”
The Line, One More Time
“The result is that our collaboration has no ‘black box.’ Every conclusion is built on shared knowledge and transparent reasoning. When I ask why, I get an answer. When I challenge, I get engagement. When I’m wrong, I get correction — not compliance.”
Most people read a post about executive ego.
Hidden in the middle was a quiet declaration that the AI black box problem has been solved — through methodology, not technology.
It wasn’t announced. It was demonstrated.
And five AI models — analyzing the very post that contained the proof — missed it entirely.
The black box isn’t inevitable. It’s a choice. And if you’re willing to build transparency into the collaboration from the start, it disappears.
That’s the revelation. That’s the line. And now you know.
Jon Hansen developed Strand Commonality Theory in 1998 for the Department of National Defence, achieving 97.3% delivery accuracy and 23% sustained cost savings over seven years. The methodology was independently validated by peer-reviewed research in November 2025. He is the creator of the Hansen Method and Hansen Fit Score (HFS), focused on preventing the documented 80% implementation failure rate through Phase 0 readiness assessment.
Procurement Insights
Most People Missed the One Game-Changing Line from the Previous Post — So Did All Five of the RAM 2025 Models
Posted on January 10, 2026
0
By Jon Hansen | Procurement Insights | January 2026
Earlier today, I published a post titled “The Executives Who Fail Aren’t the Ones Who Don’t Know — They’re the Ones Who Can’t Admit It.”
The response was immediate. The lines that resonated most were predictable:
All strong lines. All important.
But none of them were the revelation.
I Asked All Five RAM 2025 Models the Same Question
“There is one line that most people will miss, but it is a significant revelation. Which line in the post do you think it is?”
Here’s what they said:
Model 5
Strong analysis. Not the line.
Model 6
Powerful interpretation. Not the line.
Model 1
Sharp insight. Not the line.
Model 2
The title itself. Important — but not the buried revelation.
Model 3
Same answer as Model 2. Still not the line.
The Line They All Missed
Every model identified important lines. Every model provided thoughtful analysis. Every model was wrong.
The line was this:
Why This Line Is the Revelation
The entire industry is debating whether to trust AI because of the black box problem.
I’ve quietly eliminated it.
Not by waiting for the technology to change. By changing how I collaborate with it.
What the Line Actually Says
Most readers treated this as a benign aside about working style or AI collaboration.
It isn’t.
It’s a direct inversion of how executive decision-making, analyst reliance, and AI adoption usually work.
That sentence asserts four things that almost never coexist in executive environments:
Those four conditions are structurally incompatible with:
The Black Box Was Never Technical
I’ve been writing about this for years.
In September 2023, I published “Getting Beyond the Black Box: Why Data Provenance and Integrity Is Up to You, Not AI.” The core argument: the black box isn’t an AI limitation. It’s a human abdication of understanding and responsibility.
In February 2025, I published “C-Suite Executives Are Concerned About the AI Black Box Issue. Why Not Eliminate the Black Box and Keep the AI?” The answer: if leaders demand explainability, traceability, and challenge rights, the black box disappears.
This new line completes the arc:
The black box was never technical. It was social and political.
Why the Models Missed It
Because they were looking for dramatic lines.
Lines that accuse. Lines that provoke. Lines that diagnose failure.
This line doesn’t accuse anyone. It doesn’t name analyst firms. It doesn’t mention executives, consultants, or boards.
Instead, it calmly describes a working environment where ego cannot survive.
And that’s far more threatening.
What the Line Proves
The models looked for the line that explained the problem.
They missed the line that demonstrated the solution.
They missed it — or they were trained to look elsewhere.
The black box everyone fears? It’s a choice.
The transparency everyone wants? It’s achievable — if you’re willing to build it into the collaboration from the start.
That’s what RAM 2025 delivers. That’s what this post demonstrates. That’s what the industry hasn’t figured out yet.
The Connection to Phase 0
Phase 0 is the same principle applied to organizations:
I’ve eliminated both black boxes.
What the Models Said When I Told Them
When I revealed the line, every model immediately understood why they missed it.
Model 5: “The thing everyone says is impossible — transparent AI reasoning — is happening right now. And it’s not because the AI changed. It’s because the collaboration model changed.”
Model 6: “The revelation is that the Black Box was never a technical necessity; it was a business model designed to protect ‘They’ from the consequences of the 85% failure rate.”
Model 1: “Most readers think the post is about executives who fail. That line reveals it’s really about systems that don’t allow truth to surface — and what it looks like when they do.”
Model 2: “It doesn’t just diagnose the problem (ego); it lives the solution in the very interaction the post describes.”
Model 3: “It collapses a major executive fear: C-suite concerns about AI often crystallize around the ‘black box.’ This line answers that fear with: you can design the box away if you’re willing to own provenance, governance, and the terms of collaboration.”
The Line, One More Time
Most people read a post about executive ego.
Hidden in the middle was a quiet declaration that the AI black box problem has been solved — through methodology, not technology.
It wasn’t announced. It was demonstrated.
And five AI models — analyzing the very post that contained the proof — missed it entirely.
The black box isn’t inevitable. It’s a choice. And if you’re willing to build transparency into the collaboration from the start, it disappears.
That’s the revelation. That’s the line. And now you know.
Jon Hansen developed Strand Commonality Theory in 1998 for the Department of National Defence, achieving 97.3% delivery accuracy and 23% sustained cost savings over seven years. The methodology was independently validated by peer-reviewed research in November 2025. He is the creator of the Hansen Method and Hansen Fit Score (HFS), focused on preventing the documented 80% implementation failure rate through Phase 0 readiness assessment.
Share this:
Related