I Almost Automated Away My Competitive Advantage
Here's what the hanger method taught me about building with AI (and why your elegant automation is probably costing you more time)
I read the tip in some organizing blog: turn all your hangers backward, then flip them forward as you wear each piece. After a few months, you’ll see exactly what you actually wear versus what’s just taking up space.
Simple. Clean. Done.
So I did it. Hung up all my clothes, flipped the hangers backward. And honestly? It worked for the first part of the purge.
Until it didn’t: half my closet isn’t hung up at all.
I have jeans folded in a drawer. Sweaters stacked on a shelf. Casual pieces in a separate section. Then there are the pieces that aren’t regular wear—the wedding outfit, the funeral dress, the timeless blazer I wear twice a year but absolutely need. The shoes, belts, scarves, and accessories that live in their own ecosystem.
The hanger method solved for some of my clothes, but it completely ignored the complexity that actually mattered. I could turn hangers backward all day and still have half my wardrobe making its own decisions in drawers and shelves I wasn’t tracking.
That’s when I realized something that changed how I approach everything—systems, frameworks, processes, even how I build things with AI.
Simple systems fail when you ignore what’s actually real.
Most people think the problem is that they need a simpler system.
They see elegant solutions that work for others and try to force them into their own situation. The hanger trick looks beautiful because it’s reductive. One rule. One action. One outcome. But the second you acknowledge what’s actually real about your situation, that elegant solution breaks.
But here’s what I discovered: the problem isn’t the system. The problem is pretending the complexity doesn’t exist.
I wasn’t being indecisive about my closet. I wasn’t hoarding. My clothes actually lived in different places for different reasons. The hanger trick was brilliant for one piece of the puzzle, but it was built on the assumption that all my clothes worked the same way. They didn’t.
And I see this pattern everywhere now—in how solo builders try to force one automation framework into a messy reality, in how we attempt to apply one template to processes that actually need multiple logic systems, in how we ignore the complexity that matters and then wonder why elegant solutions fall apart.
If you keep forcing simple systems over actual complexity, here’s what happens:
You waste energy trying to make reality fit the system instead of building a system around reality
The elegant solution actually costs you more time than it saves because you’re constantly working around exceptions
You give up on the system entirely instead of acknowledging what’s actually real
You lose authenticity because you’re overriding what you know to be true about your situation
The closet still got purged. But not because of the hanger trick. Because I finally mapped out the actual reality: what gets worn regularly (hung in rotation), what’s seasonal (rotated storage), what’s occasion-specific (accessible but separate), what’s accessory support (its own system).
Four different logic systems. Not one.
The False Start
Initially, I thought the fix was just better organization. The hanger method looked elegant enough, and organizing blogs swear by it. So I committed. Turned every hanger backward, checked the calendar to see how long I should wait, and felt productive about having a clear system.
For exactly two weeks, it felt like it was working. Then I hit the wall: all my seasonal pieces, all my occasion-wear, all my accessories—they lived outside this system entirely. I was tracking hangers on 40% of my wardrobe and completely ignoring the other 60%.
The Turning Point
The moment it clicked was when I stopped pretending the complexity wasn’t there. I sat down and actually mapped out how my clothes actually lived, not how they’re supposed to live in organizing blog theory.
Regularly worn pieces need one system (rotation). Seasonal storage needs another (accessibility + visibility). Occasion-specific needs a third (separate but accessible, because I wear that wedding dress every few years and I need to know where it is). Accessories need their own ecosystem entirely (because scarves don’t follow closet logic, they follow “what matches the outfit” logic).
None of these pieces worked with the same system. Forcing them into one hanger method would have meant ignoring what made each piece actually valuable to keep.
The Experiment
I built a hybrid system instead. The pieces I wear regularly? Hangers in rotation. The seasonal pieces? Labeled storage with visibility. The occasion-wear? Its own section where I know exactly where to find it without opening a drawer. Accessories? Organized by type and accessibility, not by “wear frequency.”
Suddenly, the system worked because it honored what was actually real instead of pretending reality didn’t exist.
The Connection
This same pattern showed up later when I was building a video creation system with Claude. I started by asking AI to write my scripts for me. Seemed simple. Elegant. Efficient. One tool does the thinking, I do the recording.
Then I realized: I was asking Claude to replace the part of me that actually matters—my thinking, my voice, my authenticity. The elegance came from ignoring the complexity that defines what I do.
So I pivoted. Instead of “write my script,” I asked Claude to structure my thinking. Instead of “create a finished product,” I asked for “talking points that reflect my actual approach.” Instead of replacement, amplification.
That’s when the system worked. Because it honored the complexity—that I need structure AND authenticity, efficiency AND my voice, systems AND staying personally involved.
The Breakthrough
Here’s what I finally understood: simple systems look good on paper because they’re built on the assumption that everything works the same way. But the moment you acknowledge what’s actually real—that some parts of your business need hands-on attention, that some content needs your specific thinking, that some decisions only you should make—elegance has to make room for complexity.
My Story Refiner Bank process clicked into place the same way. I kept trying to force stories into a single framework until I stopped pretending they worked the same way. Some stories teach through vulnerability. Some teach through systems. Some teach through real-world failure. Different logic. Different extraction process. Different downstream use.
The system only works when you build it around what’s actually real.
Why Oversimplified Systems Were Costing Me
Using one-size-fits-all approaches meant I spent energy forcing a fit instead of building systems. I wasted time working around exceptions instead of accounting for them. And I started losing authenticity because I was overriding what I actually knew to be true.
With the closet: I’d turn the hangers backward all week, then realize I still had no system for 60% of my wardrobe. With the Claude project: I’d get beautiful scripts that weren’t in my voice, then have to rewrite them anyway—which defeated the efficiency purpose entirely.
The cost wasn’t time saved. It was time wasted on a system that ignored reality.
Building Systems Around Complexity
Here’s exactly how I built systems that honored what’s actually real:
Step 1: Map Your Actual Reality (15 minutes)
Don’t imagine how things should work. Document how they actually work right now.
For closet: How do your clothes physically live? What gets worn how often? What needs a different logic?
For video creation: What do you actually need from AI? What thinking do you need to keep? What parts feel efficient vs. what parts feel like replacement?
For your business: Which processes involve decision-making that only you should do? Which are pure busywork? Which needs your authentic voice?
Step 2: Identify Your Logic Systems (10 minutes)
Not everything in your process follows the same logic. Name them explicitly.
Example from closet:
Logic System 1: Daily rotation (hangers forward/backward tracking)
Logic System 2: Seasonal storage (labeled, accessible, rotated quarterly)
Logic System 3: Occasion-specific (separate, easily findable, worn rarely)
Logic System 4: Accessories (organized by type and matching logic, not wear frequency)
Example from video creation:
Logic System 1: Structure and talking points (AI collaboration)
Logic System 2: Authentic voice and delivery (my thinking, live recording)
Logic System 3: Visual flow and transitions (predetermined based on my teaching style)
Logic System 4: Final refinement (testing if it feels like me, not if it’s perfect)
Step 3: Build a Different System for Each Logic (20 minutes)
Trying to force one elegant system means ignoring which pieces actually need different treatment.
For the closet: hangers for daily rotation, labeled bins for seasonal items, an accessible drawer for occasion wear, and an organized shelf for accessories.
For video: Claude collaboration for structure, my natural speaking for delivery, predetermined visual framework, refinement loop that asks “does this honor my voice?”
For your business: Automation for repetitive busywork, collaboration for thinking work, systematic tracking for decision-making, and authentic interaction for client relationships.
Step 4: Test and Adjust (Ongoing)
The system only works if it honors reality. If you find yourself working around the system constantly, it means you’re ignoring a piece of actual complexity.
Ask: Is this system honoring what’s actually real, or am I pretending complexity doesn’t exist?
If you’re constantly making exceptions, the system isn’t elegant. It’s ignoring you.
The Claude AI Video Script System (That Preserved My Authenticity) - Watch me walk through the 6-step collaboration loop I created with Claude, from first iteration through final refinement
When solo builders come to me with scattered processes and overwhelm, the conversation usually goes like this:
They say: “I need a simpler system.”
What they actually mean: “Everything I do feels complicated, and I want one elegant solution to fix it.”
But then we start mapping what’s actually real. And it always looks different.
One client thought she needed to automate her entire client intake process. Seemed simple. Elegant. Efficient. Until she realized: the first conversation with a client is where they decide if she understands their business. That conversation needs her thinking. Automation would have replaced the part that makes her valuable.
Here’s the pattern: people don’t actually need simpler systems. They need systems that honor the complexity that’s actually real.
The shift happens when they stop asking “How do I make this more efficient?” and start asking “What’s the actual logic underneath each piece of what I do?”
That’s when they see it. Some parts of the business should be automated (the busywork that doesn’t define them). Some parts should stay personal (the thinking that does). Some parts need AI collaboration (structure + thinking together). Some parts need their authentic voice (delivery, client relationships, final decisions).
Different logic systems. Not one elegant solution.
The Smarter Approach
The Old Way: Force Elegance Over Complexity
Apply one system to everything. Pretend reality will bend to fit theory. Work constantly around exceptions. Eventually, abandon the system because it keeps failing.
The Smarter Way: Build Systems Around Actual Complexity
Map what’s real, identify your logic systems, build differently for each one, test if it honors what you actually do.
Here’s exactly how:
Step 1: Closet Audit for Your Business (10 minutes)
List everything you do. Next to each item, write:
How often do I do this?
Does it require my thinking, or is it busywork?
Is this part of what makes me valuable?
What logic does this actually follow?
Don’t overthink it. Just dump it.
Step 2: Group by Logic (5 minutes)
You’ll start seeing patterns. Some things all follow the same logic. Others are completely different.
Example:
Group A: Daily repetitive work (busywork, same logic, automate-friendly)
Group B: Client-facing decisions (requires your thinking, different logic, keep personal)
Group C: Creative process (needs your voice, different logic, amplify, don’t replace)
Group D: Seasonal or occasional (different rhythm, different logic, separate system)
Step 3: Build or Adjust Systems One Logic at a Time (15 minutes)
For each logic system, ask: What would actually work here?
For busywork automation, use Make or Zapier to eliminate repetitive tasks.
For client-facing decisions: Use AI collaboration (Claude structures options, you decide).
For the creative process: Use frameworks that guide but keep you in the thinking.
For seasonal/occasional: Build visibility and accessibility, not forced into daily logic.
Step 4: Ask the Question (Ongoing)
Before you implement anything: Is this system honoring what’s actually real, or is it ignoring the complexity that matters?
If you’re constantly working around the system, it’s not elegant. It’s incomplete.
If the system makes you feel less authentic, it’s replacing something it should be amplifying.
The right system should feel like it works for you, not like you’re working for it.
Pretending The Solution Works
I could have kept turning hangers backward and pretending that an elegant solution would somehow solve the part of my closet that lives in drawers.
I could have let Claude write my scripts and convinced myself that efficiency was worth losing my voice.
I didn’t. Because the moment I acknowledged what was actually real, everything changed.
Simple systems look beautiful on paper. But they break the second you stop pretending complexity doesn’t exist.
The question that matters isn’t: How do I make this simpler?
The question is: Does this system honor what’s actually real about how I work?
When you start building around actual complexity instead of forcing reality to fit elegance, something shifts. The system starts working. Your energy goes into creating, not constantly working around exceptions. You stay authentically you instead of overriding what you know.
That’s not more complicated. That’s smarter.