The Constitution Canvas
Three Locks and three Loops. Six readings on whether your limits are written, priced and load-bearing — or decorative.
- Length
- 6 questions · about 3 minutes
- Scored out of
- 30
- Benchmark
- 11
Whether the things you say you will not do are actually binding, and whether anything compounds because of them.
Constitution Canvas
A constraint is cheapest, most credible and most binding at the exact moment it is least necessary.
Most organisations have values. Almost none have Locks. A value is we care about safety. A Lock is here is the threshold, here is the test that detects it, here is what happens when it fires, and here is who signs.
The difference shows up under pressure, which is the only time it matters. This instrument reads three Locks — the Limit, the Purpose Lock, the Refusal — and the three Loops that only turn if the Locks are real.
Answer for what is written down and would survive a bad quarter, not for what everyone in the room believes.
The benchmark, and how it was built.
A score is only as good as the thing it is compared against. So the benchmark carries a grade and a method, exactly like every other figure on this site.
11/30[C]Grade C · EstimateMedian reading across founders and principals asked these six questions in workshop settings. small sample, as at 26 August 2026.As at 26 August 2026
Verified
Traced to a primary source — a filing, an audited statement, a contract, a dataset held by us — and the source is named.
Claimed
Reported by a credible party, including by us, but not independently traceable to a primary document.
Estimate
Modelled, sampled or directionally derived. Method stated. Treat as a shape, not a number.
All 6, published in full.
Nothing is hidden behind the interaction. If you would rather read the instrument than run it — or run it on paper, in a room, with other people — here it is.
01 The Limit — Is there a number your business will not cross to make a quarter — written down, with the test that detects it and the person who signs?
Not a value. A ceiling. "No client above 20% of revenue." "No credit beyond 60 days."
- 1Nothing is written. We would decide in the moment
- 2A stated principle, but no number and no test
- 3A number exists, informally held by one or two people
- 4Written, with a number and a named owner
- 5Written, versioned, with the trigger, the evaluation and the signatory named
02 The Purpose Lock — How expensive would it be, structurally, to abandon the mission?
Not how unlikely — how expensive. Ownership, charter, board appointment rights.
- 1Costless. The owners could redirect it on a Monday
- 2Awkward but easy — it would need a conversation
- 3A shareholder agreement makes it inconvenient
- 4The charter or trust deed makes it materially expensive
- 5Structurally locked: a body with no financial stake controls the change
03 The Refusal — Can you name what you will not build, sell or monetise — and what each line has cost you?
A refusal with no price attached is a preference.
- 1No such list exists
- 2We have a sense of it, unwritten
- 3A written list, but no price beside any line
- 4A written list, and we can price some of it
- 5A written list, and we can name the revenue each line has cost
04 The Trust Loop — Does the constraint win you work you would otherwise lose?
The test: does a buyer choose you because of a limit you published?
- 1No. The constraint is pure cost
- 2It helps the story, not the sale
- 3It has closed one or two deals
- 4It is on the procurement checklist and we win on it
- 5It is why the regulated, mission-critical work comes to us at all
05 The Recursive Loop — Does what you sell make you faster at building the next thing you sell?
Not "we use our own product". Does R&D velocity depend on product quality?
- 1No connection at all
- 2We use our own product, but it changes nothing
- 3It saves some internal time
- 4It measurably shortens our build cycle
- 5Our next release is a direct function of the current one’s quality
06 The Evidence Loop — Do you publish what does not work — the failures, the limits, the corrections?
The counter-intuitive result: disclosure of limitation increases willingness to buy.
- 1No. We publish results only
- 2We admit limits privately, when asked
- 3Some caveats are published
- 4We publish a method and its known weaknesses
- 5We publish a dated corrections log, and buyers cite it
Scored out of 30. Published benchmark 11. Method and grade above.
What each range means.
Published before you take the test, so the reading cannot be tuned to flatter afterwards.
Values, not Locks
What you have is a set of intentions, and intentions are renegotiated by whoever is in the room during a bad quarter. That is not a failure of character — almost nobody writes a limit at the moment it is free, because at that moment it seems unnecessary. It will never be this cheap again.
Written, not binding
Something is on paper, and the missing pieces are usually the same three: no trigger that detects the breach, no named signatory, no version number. A limit without those is a sentence, not a Lock. Adding them costs a morning.
Locks holding, loops slack
The constraints are real and survive contact with pressure. What is not yet happening is compounding — nothing is being won *because* of them. The Trust Loop is the one to start: find the buyer who chooses you for a limit you published, and make that limit legible in the sale.
An engine, not a brake
Rare. The Locks are written, priced and versioned, and at least one Loop turns because of them. The remaining risk is the one this instrument cannot read: whether the Locks survive their first genuinely expensive test. A Lock renegotiated once is not a Lock — it is a preference.
Questions about The Constitution Canvas
Answered plainly, with the real figures. If something here is wrong, tell us and it goes in the log.
A value is "we care about safety". A Lock is "here is the threshold, here is the evaluation that detects it, here is what happens when it fires, and here is who signs". The difference only shows up under pressure, which is the only time it matters. The instrument scores the trigger, the test and the signatory separately.
Six fields — the Limit, the Purpose Lock, the Refusal, and the Trust, Recursion and Evidence Loops — each on a five-level ladder, giving 30 points. The benchmark is 11, graded [C] from workshop sampling as at 26 August 2026. Bands are 0–11 values not Locks, 12–18 written but not binding, 19–24 Locks holding but loops slack, and 25–30 an engine rather than a brake.
It is free and no email is required to start. The score, the band, the benchmark and the weakest field are all shown immediately and in full. An email address is asked for only if you want the detailed worksheet afterwards, and the result is never published, sold or attached to your name.
The Constitution Engine, the capstone of the Elango Stack, which is forthcoming and unpublished. The framework it tests — three Locks, three Loops, and the Cost Curve of Commitment — is complete, which is why the instrument can run before the book ships.
Five more, one per altitude.
The AQ Score
Where your organisation sits on the twelve properties that let a machine improve a million-fold in a decade.
The Flywheel Locator
Where your AI capability actually sits on the powertrain — and which part is holding the wheel.
Do You Actually Have a Moonshot?
Whether the thing at the top of your ladder is an objective you could be held to, or a sentence that sounds good in a deck.