When a product team keeps shipping features nobody asked for twice, the instinct is to blame the process — better templates, more rigorous prioritization, cleaner handoffs. But the 11th-century Jain logician Prabhachandra noticed something that cuts deeper: we suffer less from wrong answers than from wrong questions that feel completely right. His term for it was *naya* — a partial standpoint that mistakes itself for the whole view. The trap isn't ignorance; it's confident incompleteness. A product leader asking 'how do we build this faster?' is operating from a naya. The question feels rigorous. It produces activity. But it forecloses the prior question — 'should this exist at all?' — before anyone notices the door was closed. What Prabhachandra argued, and what modern error analysis in high-stakes industries independently confirms, is that our most expensive mistakes are structurally invisible from within the frame that generates them. The frame needs a challenger, not a refiner. So the discipline isn't better answers — it's deliberately rotating the standpoint before committing to the question.

In the last two weeks, what question did your team treat as settled that was actually still open — and who, if anyone, would have been safe to say so?

Drawing from Jain Epistemology (Anekāntavāda tradition) — Prabhachandra (Prameyakamalamārtaṇḍa, c. 1040 CE)