The abstract foundation of the GTN Group: terms, values, principles and rules from which the companies of the group derive their decisions. You will find no figures, no clients and no work instructions here. Those belong to the companies.
Levels
Each level has its own task. The group defines the first four, the companies supply the fifth.
ValuesWhat fundamentally matters.
PrinciplesGeneral orientation for decisions and actions.
RulesConditions, limits and requirements, verifiable.
Decision logicHow rules are applied in context.
ImplementationActions using a company's data and means.
Every statement carries a status:
fixed
fixed (given by the value foundation)
derived
derived (justifiable from what is given, revisable)
proposed
proposed (rule or definition, testable, not confirmed)
hypothesis
hypothesis (open until decided)
tension
tension or unresolved
Values
Four values form the foundation. None ranks above the others. They describe how we deal with what is.
Truth fixed
Recognising reality, practising sincerity and correcting one's own assumptions.
Role
Direction of knowing: not what is pleasant, but what is accurate.
In practice
Establish before interpreting. Separate facts from assumptions. Make corrections visible.
Test question
Is it evidenced? What do we not know?
Awareness fixed
Consciously perceiving oneself, others, connections and consequences.
Role
Capacity of knowing: opening the view, seeing preconditions and consequences.
In practice
Name those affected and the consequences before deciding. See the part within the whole.
Test question
Whom and what does it affect, and what are we assuming?
Wisdom fixed
Combining insight, experience and judgement into appropriate action.
Role
Judgement: how knowing becomes a decision that fits the situation.
In practice
Measure, not maximum. The stakes determine the care. Never claimed as a self-description.
Test question
Is it appropriate?
Love fixed
Recognising the worth of the other and of reality, and aligning one's own actions with it.
Role
Stance in relationships: recognise worth before calculating benefit, and act accordingly.
In practice
Treat clients, partners, staff and competitors as valuable. Care in the details. Room for the other.
Test question
Is it dignified?
hypothesis Version 0.1 called this dimension appreciation. Love is the inner, complete form (recognising and aligning one's actions with it); appreciation is its visible, verifiable form. In this architecture love is the value and appreciation its evidence. Externally (home page, stance) we use the verifiable word. Status of this reading: H.
Discipline derivedImplementation principle
Consistently turning recognised values and reasoned decisions into action.
The four values answer what matters: what is accurate (truth), the connection (awareness), what is appropriate (wisdom), the worth of the other (love). Discipline answers none of these questions. It has no content of its own: one can do the wrong thing with discipline.
Discipline therefore does not belong on the level of values (what holds) but on the level of principles (how one acts). It is the implementation principle that closes the chain from decision to action, and at the same time the condition for the four values to have effect.
In the image of the cycle: the four values are the points on the circle, discipline is the movement along it. Without it the circle remains a picture.
Consequence for the architecture: four values, one implementation principle. Discipline appears in the principles (P5, P8), in the rule base (R7, R8) and as a condition in the fourth question. This placement is derived, not fixed, and needs Nicolai's confirmation.
Principles
Derived from the values. Each principle names what it follows from.
P1 · from Truth · Awareness
Reality first derived
Establish before interpreting, show before telling. Facts are checked before judging.
P2 · from Awareness
See the connection derived
No detail without context, no decision without regard to those affected and the consequences.
P3 · from Wisdom
Appropriate, not maximal derived
Measure is the criterion, not size. The stakes of a decision determine the care it receives.
P4 · from Love
Recognise worth derived
Everyone involved has worth before they have use. This applies to clients, partners, staff, competitors and critics.
P5 · from Truth · Discipline
Stay correctable derived
Mistakes are named, versions dated, changes justified and made visible. Correction is discipline in the service of truth.
P6 · from Truth · Awareness · Wisdom · Love
Distinguish, do not blur derived
Fact from assumption, ideal from implementation, substance from form, value from rule. Every statement carries its status.
P7 · from Love · Wisdom
People remain the purpose derived
Processes, systems and automation serve people. Where they do not, they are changed or abolished.
P8 · from Discipline
What is decided gets done derived
A decision without implementation is no decision. What has been decided is implemented within a named deadline or explicitly handed back.
P9 · from Awareness · Love
Involve those affected derived
Whoever is affected by a decision is involved or at least informed before it takes effect. The degree of involvement follows the stakes.
Deciding: four questions
Before every decision. The questions test different sides of a decision: feasibility, dignity, proportion and participation. Their relation to the values is not a one-to-one mapping.
Q1 · Weighing (gradual, normative)
Is it appropriate?
Meaning
Is the action in proportion to goal, effort, consequences and stakes? Appropriate is relative: appropriate for what and for whom. The reference point must be named.
Function
Measure
Relates to
Wisdom · Awareness
Clarity
Without a named reference point (goal, those affected, alternative) the question cannot be answered. A no means rebuild, not discard.
Variables
A(H), T(H)
Q2 · Feasibility check (facts with uncertainty)
Is it possible?
Meaning
Can the action be carried out in fact and in law: resources, time, capabilities, legality, data? The question tests feasibility, not impossibility. An unclear factual situation is a result of its own (clarify), not a no.
Function
Gate
Relates to
Truth · Awareness
Clarity
Possible does not mean permitted. Legality counts here as a hard condition of feasibility; anyone wanting to test it separately adds it as a sub-question (status: H).
Variables
M(H), F(H)
Q3 · Ethical weighing
Is it dignified?
Meaning
Two readings, both apply: does the action respect the worth and dignity of everyone affected? And is it worthy of the group, could we show it openly? Both tests must be passed.
Function
Gate
Relates to
Love · Truth
Clarity
The transparency test (could we show it openly) makes the question testable: an action that only works when hidden is not dignified.
Variables
W(H)
Q4 · Participation and commitment (process condition)
Are we all involved?
Meaning
Two readings, both apply: are all those affected involved or informed (participation test)? And do all who must act stand behind the decision (commitment test)? The second test is the precondition for discipline to take hold.
Function
Condition
Relates to
Awareness · Love · Discipline
Clarity
Involvement is not unanimity. With low stakes, information suffices; with high stakes, participation before the decision is required.
Variables
B(H), Z(H)
How they work together
Q2 possible (facts and feasibility)
Q3 dignified (hard limit)
Q1 appropriate (weighing)
Q4 involved (precondition for implementation)
Facts first, then the ethical limit, then the measure, then the condition for implementation. This order prevents something from passing as appropriate that is impossible or undignified.
Conflicting goals
Appropriate versus involved: participation takes time. Rule: with low stakes, information may follow action; with medium and high stakes, participation comes first.
Possible versus dignified: possible but undignified means no. Dignified but impossible means rebuild or postpone.
Appropriate versus implementation: an appropriate decision that nobody carries fails at Q4. Then the decision has become too small or the participation too large.
When a human decides
when one of the questions is answered unclear and cannot be clarified in reasonable time
when the weighing in Q1 is close or those affected assess it differently
when the action is irreversible or has high stakes (approval)
when a rule is to be overridden
when two values are in genuine tension and no rule resolves it
The four questions of version 0.1 (Is it true? Do we see the connection and consequences? Is it appropriate? Does it honour the worth of everyone involved?) are absorbed into the four questions of version 0.2: Is it true → Q2 (fact check), connection and consequences → Q1 and Q4, appropriate → Q1, honours → Q3.
Rule base
Abstract and industry-neutral. The formal notation orders conditions; it proves nothing: dignity and appropriateness remain human judgements.
Who is affected is determined by awareness (P2), not convenience.
R4 · normative
Approval proposed
R(H) = irreversible ∨ T(H) = high ⇒ approval required(H) by Z(H) with authority; R(H) = reversible ∧ T(H) = low ⇒ execute without approval, with documentation
The need for approval follows from reversibility and stakes, not from hierarchy. Reversible actions with low stakes are done without approval and documented.
A company may set stricter thresholds, never looser ones (R9).
Limits
Assessing R and T is itself an assessment with uncertainty; when in doubt, the stricter classification applies.
R5 · Procedure
Uncertainty proposed
U(H) ∧ T(H) ≥ medium ⇒ clarify before deciding; U(H) ∧ ¬clarifiable(H, t) ⇒ a human decides, uncertainty is documented
What is unclear is clarified before deciding, in proportion to the stakes. What cannot be clarified is decided explicitly by a human under named uncertainty.
With low stakes, reversible action under uncertainty is allowed.
Limits
The rule only prevents paralysis if t (time to clarify) is set in the context.
R6 · Procedure
Order of checks proposed
Order: F → M → W → A → B → (R, T) → approval → implementation
First facts, then feasibility, then the ethical limit, then the measure, then involvement, then reversibility and stakes, then approval, then implementation.
Correction does not devalue the earlier decision; it is not concealed.
R9 · Structural rule
Fidelity to context proposed
A company may: fill variables, tighten thresholds, add rules. A company may not: remove rules, loosen thresholds, reinterpret values
A company makes the rules concrete through its context. It may be stricter than the group, never looser, and it may not reduce the foundation to its operational needs.
A justified loosening is only possible as a change request to the group version (new version).
Limits
The group must link the versions of both levels (version path).
R10 · Meta-rule
Human override proposed
Z(H) with authority may override any rule R1–R9 with reasons; the override is itself an action H' and passes through R1, R4, R8
Any rule can be overridden by an authorised person with reasons. The override is visible, documented and itself subject to admissibility, approval and correction.
GTN Groupuniversal values, principles, rules, variables and glossary (this version)
Companythe same rules, filled with context, data, resources and responsibilities
Operational levelDecisions and actions that follow from rules plus filled-in context; they carry a date, a responsible person and, where needed, an approval.
What a company provides
Context K: goals, resources, data sources, legal framework, with date
Responsibilities Z per type of decision and their authority (approval rights)
Thresholds: when stakes are medium or high (e.g. amount, people affected, duration), what counts as irreversible
Deadlines t_max per type of decision and clarification time t
Mapping of its own values to the four values of the group
Mapping of its own functions and roles to the glossary
Additional rules (only stricter, never looser) and their reasons
Version path: which group version its own version is based on
Sequence: GTN Energie (first concretisation) → GTN Finanz → further companies.
The group defines the why and the abstract rules. The company makes them concrete without reducing the foundation to its operational reality.
Self-review
Are the definitions clear enough?derived Every term has a definition and a boundary. “Appropriate”, “dignified” and “stakes” remain normative: they only become comparable through thresholds in a company's context (O5).
Can the rules be derived from values and principles?derived Every rule names the principles it follows from; every principle names its values. The chain is fully documented but not yet tested on real cases (O7).
Are the levels separated?derived Values contain no conditions, rules no figures; figures only appear in a company's context. Discipline was moved from the value level to the principle level because it has no content of its own.
Are categories treated as tools?derived The glossary groups are aids to order; overlaps are made visible through relations instead of being defined away. Structures can change and are dated.
Do the rules work under conflicting goals?proposed Conflicts between the questions are named and given precedence rules; genuine value conflicts go to a human (R10, outcome HAND BACK).
Is it clear when a human must decide?proposed Yes: five named cases, the outcomes APPROVAL and HAND BACK, rules R5 and R10. Not even a human can approve the undignified.
Are the rules transferable?hypothesis The rules contain no industry terms; differences lie only in variables, thresholds and responsibilities (R9). This is only proven after the first concretisation with GTN Energie.
Is the knowledge base machine-readable and maintainable?derived One source (data/wissen.json) with stable IDs generates page and document. A formal JSON schema is still missing (O8).
Is anything normative presented as provable?derived No. The formal notation orders conditions; W and A remain value judgements of a responsible person.
Versions
Version 0.3, 17 Oct 2026: Self-understanding added: the group is what its companies have in common (new core term “group”). Group pages without reference to industries or target groups.
Occasion: Nicolai, 17 Oct 2026.
Version 0.2, 17 Oct 2026: Five dimensions examined: love as the inner form of appreciation (value), discipline as implementation principle (not a value). Four decision questions changed to appropriate / possible / dignified / involved; the questions of version 0.1 are absorbed into them. Glossary (55 terms), variables, rules R1–R10, decision logic, concretisation schema added.
Version 0.1, 17 Oct 2026: Identity & design guide: four values (with appreciation), principles P1–P7, four questions (Is it true? Connection? Appropriate? Honours?), brand architecture.
