In truth, rubber-ducking doesn’t even require anyone to listen. I find this practice of “step back and describe the system again” to be useful anytime an assump

In truth, rubber-ducking doesn’t even require anyone to listen. I find this practice of “step back and describe the system again” to be useful anytime an assumption changes, though I guess it isn’t limited to that. In my own work change of assumptions/requirements is pretty frequent, so I often find myself wanting to just step back and re-evaluate the system based on that new information. If you can take even a fragment of your problem space and go “end to end” on it logically, then you’ve in many cases given yourself a reference to work from, and now you can go off and make changes to align your work to that logic with confidence. And then you’ve also made yourself a decent test scope, so you can verify your logic and iterate on it. If I get to the end of all that and still have questions then I’ll bring someone else in, usually just for a fresh perspective, though.