Resquinalen — Research perspectives, delivered to your inbox

When you write an investment thesis, you write down the things you have thought about. That sentence sounds obvious, but it contains a trap. The act of writing forces you to articulate only the ideas that have already risen to the level of conscious deliberation. Everything else — the background beliefs, the inherited assumptions, the things that feel so self-evident they seem unworthy of a sentence — stays invisible. A private investor might spend hours researching a company's financials and competitive position, then quietly assume, without ever stating it, that the founder will remain engaged for the next decade, that the industry's regulatory environment will stay broadly stable, or that the largest customer will keep renewing its contract. None of those assumptions are written down because none of them felt like decisions. They felt like facts. The discipline of good research begins precisely at the boundary between what you have examined and what you have simply absorbed.

One useful way to start surfacing hidden assumptions is to work backwards from your conclusion. If you believe a business is worth holding through a period of uncertainty, ask yourself what would have to remain true for that belief to hold. Then ask what would have to remain true for each of those things to remain true. This recursive questioning tends to expose a layer of the thesis that most written documents never reach. You will often find that your confidence in an outcome rests on a chain of intermediate beliefs, and that somewhere in that chain there is a link you have never actually inspected. It might be an assumption about the durability of a pricing advantage, about the competence of a management team you have only read about in press releases, or about the stability of a demand pattern that has only existed for a short period. Identifying these intermediate beliefs does not mean abandoning your thesis. It means understanding what you are actually betting on, which is different from what you wrote down.

Scenario comparison is another practical tool for making hidden assumptions visible. When investors construct a bear case, they typically adjust the variables they already know are uncertain — revenue growth, margins, the pace of expansion. What they less often adjust are the structural assumptions that sit beneath those variables. A genuine stress test asks not only what happens if growth slows, but what happens if the reason growth happened in the first place turns out to have been temporary or misunderstood. It asks whether the business model depends on a particular kind of customer behaviour that could shift, or on a supply relationship that looks durable only because it has never been tested. The value of this kind of scenario work is not that it produces a precise answer — it does not — but that it forces you to name things you were previously treating as constants. Once an assumption has a name, it can be monitored, revisited and, if necessary, revised without dismantling the entire thesis around it.

The accumulation of unexamined assumptions is not a sign of carelessness. It is a natural feature of how human reasoning works under conditions of complexity and incomplete information. The brain fills gaps with plausible defaults, and in investing those defaults are often shaped by recent experience, by the narratives that happen to be prominent at the time of research, and by a general tendency to weight information that confirms a direction you are already leaning toward. A more disciplined research process does not try to eliminate this tendency, because that is not possible. It tries instead to create deliberate moments of friction — a written list of assumptions at the end of every research note, a habit of asking what the opposite of your thesis would require, a willingness to revisit old documents and notice which of your earlier assumptions have since been quietly contradicted by events. The goal is not certainty. The goal is to know, as precisely as you can, what you believe and why you believe it, so that when the world changes you can tell the difference between a thesis that has broken and a thesis that is simply being tested.