Correction: Framework Overload: Managing Mental Models Effectively
Corrected by Emir Baycan · Full-Stack Developer, Mobile App Builder and Web Platform Founder with expertise in SEO, automation, SaaS, AI visibility, DevOps and scalable digital products
Emir Baycan found something wrong, outdated, or unsupported on this page and proposed a fix. The publisher accepted the correction.
- Role
- Correction
- Publisher
- When Notes Fly
- Topic
- Concepts
- Status
- Accepted
- Date
- 28 July 2026
The exact change
The article cited a 2018 Potocnik study (14 firms), a 2015 Graber study (583 diagnostic errors), a 2020 Finkelstein study (45 companies, 62% vs 38%), a 2022 McKinsey survey (750 technology companies, 67%), and a 1984 GM/McKinsey study (35% of managers' time), each with precise figures but no verifiable source.
Removed the fabricated attributions and invented statistics; retained the qualitative claim (beyond a moderate framework repertoire, added frameworks stop improving and can degrade decision quality) as general, unattributed statements. Retained the genuinely documented history (Mintzberg's Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning, 1960s-70s corporate planning systems, GM/Sloan/Toyota).
Suggested change
See before/after.
Why this is better
These studies could not be located in any database or the cited journals and carry the signature of fabricated AI-generated citations (specific institution + sample + result, no retrievable source). Editorial policy is to remove invented sources rather than substitute new ones.
How this record is verified
- The contribution is tied to a real, identified contributor, not an anonymous byline.
- It counts only because the publisher, When Notes Fly, accepted it. Self-claimed work earns nothing.
- It is recorded against a specific page and cannot be bought or edited after the fact.