Rhythm Mismatch and the Three Domains of Strategic Knowledge (The CBA Case)
Case Study: Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) AI Voice Bot Failure
In my upcoming book The Helix Moment, I introduce the Three Domains of Strategic Knowledge as a way to diagnose why strategies fail—not because teams can’t execute, but because they misapply the wrong rhythm to the wrong kind of challenge.
It builds on Donald Rumsfeld’s famous “known knowns, known unknowns, unknown unknowns” but reimagines it for the Co‑Intelligence Age, where AI magnifies both possibilities and risks. The key idea: when the environment moves faster than your chosen rhythm, breakdowns become predictable.
1. The Three Domains: Matching Knowledge to Rhythm
Every strategic challenge lives in one of three domains. Each domain calls for a different rhythm:
▲ Lines for structure and scaling,
● Loops for iteration and learning,
〰 Vibes for sensing and emergence.
Misalign the rhythm and dysfunction follows.
Domain 1 — Known Knowns
When you know what works and how to do it.
Strategic Mode: ▲ Lines
Build, standardise, scale
Optimise efficiency and quality
Drive predictable outcomes
AI’s Role:
Automate repeatable processes
Monitor quality and exceptions
Optimise performance
Think of this as driving a well-marked highway: the map is clear, the path is proven, and consistency matters more than creativity.
Domain 2 — Known Unknowns
When you know what you need to figure out, but not yet the answer.
Strategic Mode: ● Loops
Hypothesis-driven experimentation
Rapid prototyping and test-learn cycles
Progressive refinement through feedback
AI’s Role:
Accelerate experimentation
Spot emerging patterns
Synthesise learnings across iterations
Here, success comes from designing tight learning loops: act, sense, adapt. It’s less about having the right plan and more about building the right experiments.
Domain 3 — Unknown Unknowns
When you don’t even know what you don’t know.
Strategic Mode: 〰 Vibes
Scan the horizon for weak signals
Detect shifts in culture, trust, and sentiment
Sense what wants to emerge
AI’s Role:
Detect early trend signals from vast data
Recognise cross-domain patterns
Surface scenarios and “what-ifs”
This is about resonance, not control. You’re navigating in fog — you need to feel the wind, not force the map.
Common Mismatches
Strategic breakdowns happen when leaders impose the wrong rhythm:
Using ▲ Lines when the environment demands ● Loops → leads to rigidity and failure to adapt
Using ● Loops when ▲ Lines are required → endless experimentation without scaling
Using ▲ Lines when 〰 Vibes are required → blind spots, PR crises, trust erosion
In The Helix Moment, I call this the rhythm gap—when the tempo of your strategy fails to match the tempo of the world.
2. CBA’s AI Voice Bot Failure: A Classic Rhythm Mismatch
The Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) replaced 45 call centre workers with AI voice bots, framing it as an efficiency play. On paper, it looked like a ▲ Lines problem:
“Reduce cost. Automate simple queries. Deliver faster service.”
But they misdiagnosed the challenge. What looked like a simple scaling decision actually sat across all three domains:
Step 1 — Where CBA Got It Wrong
a) Known Unknowns Ignored (● Loops Needed)
How would the bots perform with real customers?
Would they solve problems as quickly?
Could they manage emotional nuance in conversations?
CBA skipped iterative learning. Instead of piloting bots alongside humans, gathering feedback, and refining responses, they deployed at scale.
Result: call volumes spiked, bot performance lagged, managers were pulled onto phones, and service quality tanked.
b) Unknown Unknowns Overlooked (〰 Vibes Needed)
Public backlash over job losses
Perceived erosion of “trust” in a “trusted” brand
Growing societal anxiety around AI replacing workers
These weren’t on their radar. CBA failed to sense the emotional and cultural undercurrents. They missed weak signals around Australian values of fairness, worker rights, and trust in institutions.
By the time outrage surfaced, they were scrambling. Within weeks, CBA had to re-hire all 45 workers, conceding that “the human element and staff expertise remain critical.”
The Rhythm Collision
CBA treated this like a ▲ Lines scaling challenge, when it was actually a multi-rhythm challenge:
▲ Lines for automating simple tasks
● Loops for testing and refining bot performance
〰 Vibes for sensing public sentiment and reputational risk
Their single-rhythm response amplified damage: operational chaos, reputational backlash, and a costly reversal.
3. Remedies from The Helix Moment
The CBA case underscores why AI adoption must be multi-rhythmic:
Start with the Diagnostic
Use the Helix Diagnostic to locate the domain: is this execution, learning, or sensing?
Build Learning Loops Early (●)
Pilot bots in controlled environments. Use the 5Ps Loop Design:
Perceive gaps → Perform small tests → Portfolio options → Pause/Promote winners → Progress learnings.
Use AI for Sensing (〰)
Deploy AI for sentiment analysis, trend scanning, and early warning detection — but combine it with human intuition for cultural alignment.
Blend Rhythms, Don’t Default
Scale only after iterative testing and social sensing confirm readiness.
4. The 2025 Lesson
By 2025, the CBA incident remains a cautionary tale. It shows what happens when leaders apply machine speed without human rhythm.
True AI strategy isn’t about replacing humans — it’s about augmenting them.
Success in the Co‑Intelligence Age demands rhythmic orchestration: matching knowledge domains to adaptive rhythms and weaving AI into that dance.
As I write in The Helix Moment :
“Strategy must move with the world, not against it.”