Unerroring Practice

“The system that eliminates all error eliminates all adaptation. What remains is perfect — and dead.”

— Unknown systems theorist (probably fired for this insight)

Best Practices promise error-free results. They deliver faulty systems that can't navigate their faults. What if errors aren't the problem, but the solution? A journey to Cain, Abel, and the question of why God had to protect the murderer.

Cain & Abel: A Systems Theory Parable

Here's a story everyone knows. Nobody understands.

Abel brings the perfect offering. God approves. The system works. Reproduction successful. Everything stable.

Cain brings the flawed offering. God rejects it. Cain kills Abel.

Standard interpretation: Cain is the villain. Murder is bad. End of story.

Systems theory interpretation:

Abel represents Autopoiesis—the system that reproduces itself perfectly. Stable. Self-maintaining. Functional.

Cain represents Paradoxical Interactions—the destabilizing force that disrupts perfect reproduction. Destructive. Dangerous. Necessary.

Without Abel: No structure. Chaos. System collapses.

Without Cain: No change. Rigidity. System fossilizes.

Why God Had to Protect the Murderer

Here's the part that makes theologians uncomfortable:

God banishes Cain. But God also protects him.

The mark of Cain isn't just punishment. It's structural recognition.

God cannot eliminate Cain without destroying his own creation order.

Why?

Because a system with only Autopoiesis dies from its own perfection.

No adaptation. No evolution. No response to environmental change.

Perfect self-reproduction leads to perfect irrelevance. Then extinction.

Cain must exist. Not morally. Structurally.

God protects the murderer because the alternative—a world with only Abel—would be a world that cannot survive the first environmental shift.

This is the Ur-PI.

The creator trapped in his own creation. Unable to eliminate the destructive element without destroying the creative capacity.

Two Complementary Mechanisms

Think of biological systems:

DNA replication (Abel/Autopoiesis): High fidelity. Error correction. Near-perfect reproduction.

Mutation (Cain/PI): Errors in replication. "Mistakes." Variations.

If DNA replication were 100% perfect:

• No cancer (good)
• No adaptation (fatal)
• First environmental change → extinction

Evolution requires error.

Not despite survival. For survival.

The organisms that survive are not the ones that eliminate all errors. They're the ones that integrate errors into their adaptive capacity.

What is Unerroring?

Three approaches to error:

1. Error-Free Practice

Eliminate all errors. Six Sigma. Zero defects.

Problem: No adaptation mechanism. First unexpected change → system failure.

Example: Nokia. Perfect execution of feature phone strategy. Zero room for error. When smartphones emerged, the structure optimized for perfection couldn't pivot. Success became suicide.

2. Error-Tolerant Practice

Accept that errors happen. Build resilience. Agile methodology.

Problem: Defensive posture. Errors are exceptions to manage, not components of the system.

Example: Organizations that "tolerate failure" as long as you learned something. Translation: Failure is acceptable if it proves the system was right. Structural learning disabled.

3. Unerrored Practice

Integrate errors as system components. Not eliminated. Not tolerated. Structurally necessary.

Principle: Errors aren't bugs. They're the mechanism that prevents the system from optimizing itself to death.

Example: "Try and continue." You attempt something. It fails. You don't fix the failure—you integrate the learning. The failure becomes part of the next attempt. The system doesn't eliminate error. It metabolizes it.

The Difference in Practice

Scenario: Security breach in your system.

Error-Free Response: "Who failed? Fire them. Implement controls to prevent this specific breach. Document the procedure. Never again."

Result: That specific breach won't recur. But the system becomes more rigid. Next breach—slightly different—exploits the new controls. Pattern repeats. Each "fix" makes the system more vulnerable to unexpected attacks.

Error-Tolerant Response: "Failures happen. Let's learn. Build resilience. Accept that breaches occur."

Result: Psychological safety increases. But "accepting failure" becomes permission to not investigate structural causes. Next breach: "Well, we said failures happen." Pattern repeats.

Unerroring Response: "This breach reveals a structural pattern. Not who failed—what structure made this breach inevitable? How does this error inform the next iteration?"

Result: The breach isn't eliminated or tolerated. It's integrated. The system doesn't become more rigid (error-free) or more passive (error-tolerant). It becomes more adaptive.

Why Organizations Can't Do This

Because it requires admitting something unbearable:

Your success depends on maintaining the capacity for failure.

Every optimization—every efficiency gain, every best practice, every standardized procedure—removes adaptive capacity.

The better you get at what you do, the worse you get at doing something else.

This is why industry leaders get disrupted by startups. The startup is worse at everything—except adaptation. They have more errors. That's their advantage.

Nokia wasn't disrupted because they made mistakes. They were disrupted because they eliminated mistakes too successfully.

The Cruel Irony

The organizations that understand this can't implement it.

Why?

Because "We're building a system that requires maintaining our capacity for error" doesn't get funding.

Investors want:

• Clear metrics
• Proven processes
• Risk mitigation
• Predictable outcomes

Unerroring offers none of these.

It offers: Structural capacity to navigate what you cannot predict.

That's not a pitch. That's a threat.

To investors: "Your money might fail in unpredictable ways." To executives: "Your success metrics might not apply." To employees: "Your expertise might become obsolete."

All true. All necessary. All impossible to sell.

The Abel Trap

Here's what kills organizations:

Early success (Abel phase):

• Product works
• Market responds
• Process crystallizes
• "Never change a winning team"

The system optimizes for reproduction of success. Error elimination. Best practices. Documentation. Standards.

Result: Perfect reproduction of yesterday's solution. Zero capacity for tomorrow's problem.

When disruption comes (Cain appears):

• "We don't do it that way"
• "That's not our core competency"
• "Our customers don't want that"
• "The data doesn't support it"

All true. All rational. All fatal.

The organization has optimized away its capacity to handle Cain.

When Abel eliminates Cain, Abel dies. Eventually.

Why God Couldn't Save Abel

This is the theological crux:

God had to choose: Save Abel or save the system.

Saving Abel = Eliminating Cain = Static perfection = Evolutionary dead end

Protecting Cain = Abel dies = Painful = System survives

God chose system survival over individual preservation.

"All are guilty. None are at fault."

Abel didn't deserve to die. Cain had to kill. God couldn't prevent it without destroying the capacity for change.

The murder wasn't a moral failure. It was structural necessity.

What This Means for Practice

You cannot eliminate PI.

Every attempt to create error-free systems:

• Removes adaptive capacity
• Increases brittleness
• Accelerates obsolescence

You can only navigate.

Navigation looks like:

1. Acknowledge the Structure

"Our success creates the conditions for disruption. Not if. When."

Not pessimism. Structural reality.

2. Maintain Error Capacity

Build slack. Allow experiments. Don't punish all failures equally.

Not about "psychological safety" (that's HR speak). About structural capacity to integrate unexpected outcomes.

3. Expect Cain

The thing that disrupts you won't look like improvement. It will look like error.

The successful organization says: "That's not how we do things." The adaptive organization says: "That's not how we do things. Yet. Should we?"

4. Protect the Disruptors

When someone in your organization proposes something that contradicts your success formula—that's Cain.

You can eliminate them (most do). Or you can give them the mark—protection to exist at the margins, where their destructive capacity m

The Test Nobody Can Pass

How do you know if you're practicing unerroring?

You can't.

If you have clear metrics for it—you're doing error-free practice with better PR.

If you can demonstrate it succeeded—you're measuring the wrong thing.

Unerroring shows up in what doesn't happen:

• The disruption that didn't kill you
• The pivot you could make
• The expertise you could abandon
• The success you could question

All invisible. Until crisis proves they were there.

This is itself a PI:

The practice that works can't be measured by success metrics. The organizations that need it most are structurally unable to implement it. And explaining this makes it sound like rationalization for failure.

But here's the difference:

Rationalization says: "Our failure is actually success."

Unerroring says: "Our success creates the conditions for failure. We're preparing for that. Without metrics. Without proof. Because the structure requires it."

One sounds delusional. One sounds paranoid.

Both might be right.

Why This Validates PI

A framework that claims structural problems can't be solved, only navigated...

And then describes a practice that can't be proven, only demonstrated through what doesn't happen...

That's not weakness. That's consistency.

If PI could offer a "5-step process to error integration"—that would contradict its own theory.

If unerroring had clear success metrics—that would mean it's not actually integrating errors, just measuring their elimination.

The framework doesn't resolve paradoxes. It demonstrates them.

Including this one:

Can you implement a practice whose success is invisible?

From outside: Looks like you're not doing anything.

From inside: You're maintaining capacity nobody values until it's suddenly essential.

Both true. Simultaneously. Structurally irresoluble.

The Brutal Truth

You will not get credit for unerroring.

When crisis comes and you navigate it:

• "They got lucky"
• "Anybody could have done that"
• "Where's the proof it was your approach?"

When crisis comes and you fail:

• "See? Your weird theory didn't work"
• "Should have stuck to best practices"
• "Tried to be too clever"

There is no validation path.

Because the practice that prevents disaster looks like doing nothing. Until disaster doesn't happen. And then it looks like luck.

Navigation:

✓ Do it anyway
✓ Document the thinking (not the outcome)
✓ Accept you won't get credit
✓ Know that survival is not proof

✗ Expect recognition
✗ Demand metrics
✗ Sell it as "the answer"
✗ Claim you "solved" anything

All Are Guilty. None Are at Fault.

Abel perfected the system. Optimized for stability. Rational.

Cain disrupted the system. Killed the stable element. Rational.

God created both. Couldn't save both. Chose system survival. Rational.

Everyone acts correctly. The structure produces murder.

That's PI.

And the fact that unerroring can't prove it works is not failure.

It's the point.

The practice that maintains adaptive capacity in unpredictable environments cannot, by definition, provide predictable proof of its value.

You either understand why that's necessary.

Or you optimize yourself to death.

Both rational choices.

​Try and continue.

Related:

• [The Validation Paradox]
• [The Priest of Nemi:] How Success Creates Its Own Assassin
• [The Cassandra Paradox]
• [Never Change a Winning Team (Anti-Practice)]
• [Put Good People in Charge (Anti-Practice)]

See also:

• [Core Practices]—What actually navigates
• [Anti-Practices]—What guarantees failure
• [Framework]—The full theoretical foundation

Published: 2025-01-30
Author: Peter Senner
Framework: [Paradoxical Interactions]

Paradoxical Interactions (PI): When rational actors consistently produce collectively irrational outcomes—not through failure, but through structure.