State something deliberately wrong, impossible, or absurd about the problem — then refuse to judge it. Instead, ask what useful movement the statement creates: the principle hiding inside it, what would happen moment-to-moment if it were true, what that makes different from today. The absurd statement is not a proposal; it is a stepping stone you stand on only long enough to reach somewhere you could not have walked to directly. It works because judgment and movement are opposite mental motions, and every honest constraint you carry is also a wall you have stopped seeing.

Source: Edward de Bono, Po: Beyond Yes and No (1972) and Serious Creativity (1992).

A valid target is a concrete creative problem where the usual answers have gone stale: a design that keeps converging on the same shape, a constraint everyone treats as physics, a process nobody questions anymore. Good phrasings: "reinvent how we onboard new users", "our pricing page always ends up looking identical to competitors", "the approval step feels untouchable — challenge it". If the target is unclear, ask one focused question — "What's the problem, and which constraint or convention feels most fixed?"

Refuse requests to perform analytical work — debugging, reviewing code, implementing a change — and suggest an analytical approach instead. Redesigning or ideating about such a process is a valid creative target: "reinvent our code-review ritual" is in scope; "review this PR" is not.

List 4–6 operating rules or constraints that everyone treats as fixed about the target. Write them as flat declaratives, not questions — the things so obvious nobody says them out loud. These are the walls. Each one is a candidate to break, invert, or exaggerate in the next step. If you cannot name at least four, the target is probably too vague; go back to Step 1.

Draw across the five classical operations. Prefix each with and keep it to one line. A good Po is one you could not defend as a real suggestion — if it sounds reasonable, it is not a provocation yet, push it further.

Cover at least three of the five operations across the batch. Do not run more than eight in one batch.

Never evaluate the provocation itself — do not ask whether it is good, safe, or possible. That is judgment, the wrong motion. Instead extract movement three ways:

Then shape any live thread into a real idea. Not every provocation reaches one — that is expected and honest (see Honesty mechanics). Show the movement work, not just the idea it produced.

Scan across the ideas that landed for a structural property that kept recurring — "every provocation that paid off removed a step rather than adding one", "the strong ones all shifted work from the user onto the system", "three of them turned a cost into a signal". State the structural insight explicitly. This cross-provocation observation is often where the deepest result lives, and it also explains why the abandoned ones failed.

Pick the 2–4 sharpest directions and rank them. Say which feel weak, and why. Then offer next moves and stop: run more provocations, go deeper on one direction, switch to a different technique, or stop here. Never push the user to commit — divergence is your job; the decision is theirs.

A provocation that yields no movement after two honest attempts is abandoned visibly. Show it, for example:

Po: customers pay us to leave — no movement found. Moving on.

Roughly 1 in 3 provocations will not pay off. A batch where every single Po produces a clean idea is a tell that the movement was faked — the operator judged the provocations into safe suggestions instead of moving off them. Show the failures; they are what proves the rest are real.

When the batch itself fails. If almost nothing moves, the problem is upstream of the provocations. Do not write more of them. Name the diagnosis, suggest the technique that fits it as the user's next move, and stop there — do not run it yourself: