"The Games People Play With Cash Flow" — @CedricChin
Why this is in the vault
Foundation epistemology piece — Cedric's argument that frameworks are useful, not true, and that the test is whether they help you act under uncertainty. This shapes how RDCO writes (Sanity Check's anti-framework-cargo-cult bias) and how we run client engagements (we resist deploying methodologies for their own sake).
The core argument
Different businesses are different cash-flow games — and most career and operating decisions become clearer once you ask which game you're actually playing. Subscription revenue, project services, advertising, marketplace fees — each has different working-capital needs and different decision rhythms.
Mapping against Ray Data Co
Sanity Check's editorial voice is heavily indebted to Cedric's epistemological humility — 'optimise for usefulness' is essentially our north star vs. the LinkedIn-thought-leader tendency to package observations as 'frameworks'. When we write about agent deployments, the bar is whether the reader can act differently tomorrow, not whether the post sounds insightful.
Related
- [[2026-04-15-commoncog-no-truth-in-business-only-knowledge]]
- [[2026-04-15-commoncog-deming-paradox]]
Source: The Games People Play With Cash Flow by Cedric Chin (Commoncog). 5432 words. Filed 2026-04-19 as part of Start-Here + Business-Expertise-Triad backfill cohort.