I like this post and find some of it quite helpful as a framework, but certain pieces are sufficiently vague that I actually have no idea what's being said:
"As a rule with few exceptions, you want to move forward through iteration loops, not backward. (Too often, moving backward is a sign of problems with doing, not problems with planning.)"
What does that mean? a short example here would help. How do I know if reprioritizing is going backwards or a problem of doing vs. what was advised up above?
I agree that some of this was kinda weird or just meant for those "in the know," but it was mostly a good piece. I especially appreciate the ABZ idea, because it comports with one of the best pieces of advice I got in college, "Work from the end, to the beginning." What does the finish product look like and how did it get there? It frames your (my) thinking better when I don't have an answer. If I take the learned experience of what I've done (A) what I'm working on already (B), and I know I want to make (Z), that's end-to-beginning thinking.
I guess it means for some "plan do check act" loop, you want to avoid doing a plan, a do, then to plan again (because you have something important to note), then do a bit etc... This kind of back and forth were you subvert the principle by turning the loop into a 2 step pseudo-iteration.
"As a rule with few exceptions, you want to move forward through iteration loops, not backward. (Too often, moving backward is a sign of problems with doing, not problems with planning.)"
What does that mean? a short example here would help. How do I know if reprioritizing is going backwards or a problem of doing vs. what was advised up above?