The second lens produces a register of everything the business does commercially that was designed for a buyer it no longer has, and puts one of three verdicts against each entry.
Keep covers practices that still earn their place, including old ones. Age is not evidence of obsolescence. A great deal of what founder-led businesses do well is traditional, and a reformation that discards it because it is traditional has confused the calendar with the diagnosis.
Reform covers practices whose intent is sound and whose execution assumes conditions that have changed. A discovery call that exists to understand the buyer is worth reforming. A discovery call that exists to make the buyer state a problem back to a seller who already knows it is worth retiring.
The verdict people avoid
Retire is the hard one, and it is hard for a specific reason. The practices that most need retiring are rarely failing visibly. They are producing a declining return that is easy to attribute to the market. Nobody has to defend them because nobody has attacked them.
Giving that verdict requires the evidence from the first lens, which is why the sequence runs in this order. An argument that a long-standing practice should stop, made on judgment alone, is a fight between seniorities. Made against a baseline, it is a reading of a record everyone in the room can see.
The register is kept after the engagement, because the verdicts expire. Something reformed this year against a stated set of conditions should be re-read when those conditions change, and a business that has the register can do that without running the whole diagnosis again.