Stop Saying Yes to Everything: The 3-Question Filter That Protects 15 Hours Weekly and Unlocks $40K Monthly
You’re saying yes to opportunities that diffuse your effort and kill momentum. Here’s the 5-minute filter that protects focus and multiplies results.
The Executive Summary
Founders, consultants, and agency owners in the $25K–$50K/month band quietly give up 12–18 hours monthly and stall at $28K–$42K by saying yes to everything; a 3-question filter converts scattered opportunities into focused, high-ROI growth.
Who this is for: Founders, consultants, and small agencies between $25K–$50K/month working 50–62 hours weekly who feel “maxed out,” stuck at plateaus like $28K–$42K/month, and overloaded with podcasts, collabs, and “visibility” work that rarely converts.
The Opportunity Overcommitment Problem: Unfiltered yeses to “good exposure” burn 120–188 hours over 6 months for as little as $4,500 ($24–$38/hour) while proven channels like email, referrals, and core growth work that produce $180–$292/hour get sidelined.
What you’ll learn: The 3-Question Filter (90-day goal alignment, strength/energy fit, 2x ROI test), archetypes like Exposure Plays, Time Vampires, Trojan Horses, and tooling like Notion, Coda, Airtable, Calendly, Typeform, Zapier, RescueTime to operationalize the filter.
What changes if you apply it: You default opportunities to NO, reclaim 12–18 hours monthly, redirect them into email, referrals, and repeatable sales systems, and unlock jumps like $28K to $40K or $39K to $54K/month while actually working fewer, more focused hours.
Time to implement: Spend 30 minutes weekly on an opportunity review block, 5 minutes per request to run the filter, 60–90 days to calibrate ROI patterns, and 6 months to compound into $8,000–$23,000 extra revenue from protected focus.
Written by Nour Boustani for mid-five to low-six-figure founders and operators who want focused, compounding growth without 60-hour weeks sacrificed to low-ROI “opportunities.”
While you’re accepting every “good exposure” invite, someone else is filtering ruthlessly and building a focused engine that actually compounds. Upgrade to premium and stop paying in hours for opportunities that don’t move revenue.
The $32K Revenue Cost of Saying Yes
You have plenty of opportunities at $28K — the drag comes from saying yes to too many that don’t deserve your time.
Ever said yes to a podcast interview, speaking gig, or collaboration - then spent 12 hours preparing for an opportunity that generated zero clients? Most opportunity evaluation happens on gut feel and FOMO. This filter fixes that.
Last month, I talked to a consultant making $28,000/month from 6 active clients at an average of $4,667 each. Strong positioning. Solid delivery. Revenue has been stuck for 9 months.
“I’m getting tons of opportunities,” she said. “But I can’t seem to break through.”
The numbers told the real story.
Time breakdown per month:
Client delivery: 80 hours (core work)
Growth work: 32 hours (signal activities that drive revenue)
Opportunities accepted: 31 hours (podcasts, guest posts, collaborations, speaking)
Total: 143 hours working
Opportunity breakdown over 6 months:
18 podcast interviews: 54 hours prep + recording, 0 clients generated
6 speaking events: 42 hours prep + travel, 1 client generated ($4,500 one-time)
8 guest articles: 32 hours writing, 0 clients generated
4 collaboration projects: 60 hours execution, 0 clients generated
Total: 188 hours on opportunities, $4,500 total revenue = $24/hour
Meanwhile, her email newsletter (which she hadn’t touched in 4 months due to “no time”) had historically generated 73% of her clients at an effective rate of $180/hour of effort.
She spent 188 hours over 6 months on opportunities that felt productive but generated $24/hour while neglecting the channel that generated $180/hour.
The math breaks down worse:
Core growth work (email, referrals, content): $28,000/month from 32 hours monthly = $875/month per hour
Opportunity work (podcasts, speaking, guest posts): $750/month average from 31 hours monthly = $24/month per hour
She was spending 49% of her growth time on work that generated 3% of her results.
“I just need more visibility,” she said.
Wrong diagnosis.
She didn’t need more opportunities. She needed better filtering. The problem wasn’t a lack of exposure - it was accepting opportunities that diffused effort without moving her 90-day goals.
Here’s what most operators miss: Not every good opportunity should be accepted. Your constraint at $25K-$40K isn’t opportunity volume - it’s focus. Every low-ROI opportunity consumes time that could build your core growth engine.
The pattern repeats across 81 businesses I’ve audited: founders accept opportunities based on “sounds good” without systematically evaluating strategic fit, capability match, or ROI. Result: calendar fills up, energy disperses, and core revenue work gets squeezed into whatever time remains.
She needed an opportunity filter - something faster than analysis paralysis but more reliable than saying yes to everything that sounds interesting.
The Pattern That Keeps You There
Most opportunity decisions happen in seconds based on excitement or obligation. Someone asks you to speak at their event, you think “this could be good exposure,” and you say yes.
No systematic evaluation. No ROI calculation. No filter beyond “does this sound interesting?”
Result: 50-70% of accepted opportunities generate zero return and consume critical growth capacity.
Here’s where that plays out at different revenue stages.
Pattern 1: The FOMO acceptance trap
One agency owner accepted every collaboration opportunity that came his way.
“I don’t want to miss the one that breaks everything open,” he said.
No filter. No criteria. No evaluation beyond “could this possibly help?”
Revenue stuck at $42,000 for 11 months. Worked 62 hours weekly. Constantly busy but never getting traction.
Accepted opportunities over 6 months:
12 podcast interviews: 36 hours, 2 discovery calls (0 converted)
7 webinar partnerships: 28 hours, 0 leads generated
5 guest teaching sessions: 20 hours, 1 lead (didn’t convert)
9 networking events: 36 hours, 3 connections (0 business)
Total: 120 hours, $0 revenue
Meanwhile, his referral system (which needed 8 hours to systematize properly) sat unbuilt because he “didn’t have time.”
FOMO creates this pattern: You accept everything that might work, ensuring nothing gets the focused attention required to actually work.
Pattern 2: The flattery-driven yes
One coach couldn’t say no when asked to contribute her expertise.
“They asked me specifically,” she said. “It feels wrong to decline.”
Every request for her time felt like validation. Every invitation felt like recognition.
Revenue: $31,000 from 7 clients
Time spent on “opportunities”: 40 hours monthly
Actual ROI from opportunities: $2,100 over 8 months = $8/hour
The cost:
Guest article for major publication: 12 hours writing, 0 clients, “great for positioning” (but positioning didn’t convert)
Free workshop for professional group: 8 hours prep + delivery, 4 attendees, 0 leads
Collaboration project with peer: 16 hours co-creating content, 127 views, 0 engagement
Speaking at industry event: 18 hours prep + travel + delivery, 1 lead (never responded to follow-up)
Total: 54 hours over 8 weeks on work that generated $0 and felt productive because “people were asking for her.”
When you accept opportunities based on flattery instead of strategy, you train the market to ask for your time without compensating for your value. That creates exhaustion without revenue.
Pattern 3: The strategic drift acceptance
One consultant accepted opportunities that “aligned with long-term strategy” without checking short-term goals.
“This builds the foundation for where I want to be in 3 years,” he said.
Didn’t evaluate: Does this support my 90-day goals? Does this play to my current strengths? What’s the actual ROI this quarter?
Result: Revenue dropped from $47,000 to $39,000 over 6 months while he “invested in strategic positioning.” Client acquisition: 0 during this period. Positioning work: 72 hours consumed.
The miss: He evaluated opportunities against a 3-year vision instead of quarterly goals. Strategic alignment without tactical execution creates busy work disguised as progress.
Long-term thinking is valuable. But accepting opportunities that don’t support your 90-day goals trades current revenue for theoretical future payoff - and most operators can’t afford that trade at $30K-$50K monthly.
The Opportunity Filter
Here’s the framework that turns random acceptance into systematic opportunity selection.
Every opportunity gets evaluated on three questions. All three must be YES to proceed. If any question is NO, the answer is automatic NO regardless of how “good” the opportunity sounds.
The 3-Question Filter:
Question 1: Does this align with my 90-day goals?
Review your current quarterly goals. You should have 3-5 major goals this quarter tied directly to revenue growth or capacity building.
Does this opportunity directly support one of those goals? Not “could eventually help” - does it directly move you toward a specific goal you’re tracking this quarter?
If the opportunity doesn’t map to a current goal, it’s a NO - even if it’s objectively a good opportunity. Strategic alignment with your actual current priorities is essential.
Examples:
Your Q2 goals: Build email list to 2,000 subscribers, close 3 retainer clients at $8K/month, systematize client onboarding.
Opportunity: Guest on a podcast with 500 downloads/episode in your niche.
Evaluation: Does the podcast appearance directly support email list building (if you can offer a lead magnet), client acquisition (if the audience matches the ideal client profile), or onboarding systematization (no)? If the podcast allows lead magnet opt-in and audience matches the client profile: YES to Question 1. If a podcast is “good exposure” but has no direct path to goals: NO.
Your Q3 goals: Launch group program, fill 12 spots at $3K each, create program curriculum.
Opportunity: Speak at industry conference.
Evaluation: Does speaking directly support program launch (if you can pitch the program to attendees), program enrollment (if attendees match the target), or curriculum creation (no)? If the conference allows a program pitch and attendees are an ideal fit: YES. If the conference is “good for positioning” but wrong audience or no pitch opportunity: NO.
The filter isn’t “could this possibly help?” The filter is “does this directly advance a specific goal I’m tracking this quarter?”
Question 2: Does this play to my strengths?
Am I uniquely good at this type of work? Will I enjoy doing this? Does this energize me?
All three sub-questions must be YES. If no to any, it’s a NO - you should delegate, decline, or refer to someone better suited.
Sub-question 2A: Am I uniquely good at this?
“Uniquely good” means: Do I have proven capability here? Have I done this successfully before? Do I have an advantage that makes my contribution valuable?
If you’re accepting an opportunity in an area where you’re average or still learning, you’ll spend 3x the time for 1/3 the result compared to someone with deep expertise.
Examples:
Opportunity: Co-host a webinar about email marketing.
You: Have built 3 email lists to 5,000+ subscribers, generated $180K from email over 2 years, and teach email in your programs. YES - uniquely good.
Opportunity: Co-host a webinar about paid ads.
You: Have dabbled in Facebook ads, spent $8,000 with mixed results, and haven’t run ads in 8 months. NO - not uniquely good. Someone else should do this.
Sub-question 2B: Will I enjoy doing this?
“Enjoy” doesn’t mean “easy” or “requires no effort.” It means: Am I energized by this type of work? Do I look forward to doing it? Will I be present and engaged, or dragging myself through it?
If you dread the work, you’ll deliver mediocre quality and extract no energy from the experience. That’s a double loss.
Examples:
Opportunity: Teach a live workshop to 30 people.
You: Love teaching live, get energy from group interaction, and find that teaching refines your thinking. YES - will enjoy.
Opportunity: Write detailed technical documentation.
You: Find writing draining, avoid it when possible, and resent time spent writing. NO - won’t enjoy. Delegate or decline.
Sub-question 2C: Does this energize me?
Energy test: When you imagine doing this work, do you feel excited? Or do you feel obligation, dread, or resignation?
Your energy is your most valuable asset. Opportunities that drain energy cost more than their time investment - they reduce your capacity for everything else you do that week.
Examples:
Opportunity: Partner on a content series with a peer you respect.
You: Excited to collaborate, energized by their thinking, looking forward to working together. YES - energizes.
Opportunity: Speak at an event where you’ll be around people who exhaust you.
You: Feel obligation to say yes, dread the networking, know you’ll be depleted for 2 days after. NO - drains energy.
If Question 2 (or any sub-question) is NO, the opportunity should be delegated to someone on your team, referred to a peer who’d be better suited, or declined politely.
Question 3: Is the ROI positive?
Calculate: (Expected return - Cost) / Time invested
If ROI is less than 2x, it’s a NO. Not worth your capacity at your current stage.
Components:
Expected return includes:
Direct revenue (will this generate clients?)
Client quality (will this attract ideal clients worth $X each?)
Strategic positioning (will this create future opportunities worth $Y?)
List building (will this add Z subscribers at $X value each?)
Cost includes:
Money spent (production, travel, tools)
Time invested (prep, execution, follow-up)
Opportunity cost (what else could you do with this time?)
Time invested includes:
Preparation time (research, creation, planning)
Execution time (actual delivery)
Follow-up time (emails, calls, relationship maintenance)
ROI calculation examples:
Podcast opportunity:
Expected return: 500 downloads, 10 email opt-ins at $100 lifetime value each = $1,000 expected
Cost: $0 money, 3 hours time (1 hour prep, 1 hour recording, 1 hour follow-up)
Time invested: 3 hours
ROI: ($1,000 - $0) / 3 hours = $333/hour
Your effective rate from client work: $150/hour
Decision: $333/hour > $150/hour = 2.2x ROI = YES on ROI
Guest article opportunity:
Expected return: Publication reaches 50,000, estimated 20 email opt-ins at $100 lifetime value = $2,000 expected
Cost: $0 money, 8 hours time (6 hours writing, 2 hours revisions + coordination)
Time invested: 8 hours
ROI: ($2,000 - $0) / 8 hours = $250/hour
Your effective rate from client work: $200/hour
Decision: $250/hour > $200/hour = 1.25x ROI = NO (below 2x threshold)
Collaboration project opportunity:
Expected return: Uncertain - “could be good,” no clear path to revenue, “positioning benefit”
Cost: $0 money, 20 hours of time
Time invested: 20 hours
ROI: Cannot calculate (no quantified expected return)
Decision: NO - if you can’t quantify expected return, ROI is zero by default
The 2x threshold exists because operators consistently overestimate expected return and underestimate time invested. A 2x target accounts for that error and ensures opportunities that actually clear 1.3-1.5x after reality adjusts your estimates.
The Default Answer: NO
This’s the framework’s most important rule: NO is the default answer to every opportunity.
If all 3 questions = YES → Consider the opportunity deeply (not automatic acceptance)
If any question = NO → Automatic NO (polite decline immediately)
When in doubt → NO (protect focus)
Why NO by default?
At $25K-$50K monthly, your constraint isn’t opportunity - it’s focused execution. Every opportunity accepted consumes capacity that could compound your core growth engine.
One YES to the wrong opportunity costs you:
Time that could build your repeatable sale system
Focus that could systematize delivery that generates referrals
Energy that could improve your core metrics
Attention that could strengthen your signal work
The opportunity cost of YES is higher than the benefit of most opportunities.
Protection mechanisms:
Response template for uncertain opportunities:
“This sounds interesting. Let me check if it aligns with my current priorities and I’ll get back to you by [specific date].”
This buys 24-48 hours to run the filter without pressure. Most opportunities that seem urgent aren’t - and the ones that truly are urgent usually aren’t worth accepting (urgency often signals poor planning).
Monthly opportunity audit:
Track every opportunity you decline for 90 days. Most operators discover:
60-80% of declined opportunities generated zero value for whoever accepted them
15-25% generated minor value (<$100/hour effective rate)
5-10% were genuinely valuable (and you’ll feel the FOMO)
That 5-10% creates the fear that makes saying NO difficult. But protecting focus on the 90-95% that don’t matter compounds results that dwarf what you’d gain from the 5-10% you might miss.
The anti-pattern:
One consultant tracked accepted vs declined opportunities for 6 months.
Accepted opportunities: 14 total, 112 hours invested, $4,200 generated = $38/hour
Declined opportunities: 31 total, would have consumed 217 hours, generated unknown value
She took the 217 hours saved from declining and invested them in her email system. Result: Email generated $23,000 additional revenue over those 6 months = $106/hour effective rate.
Saying NO to 31 opportunities allowed her to generate 2.8x more value per hour than saying YES to the 14 she accepted.
Your edge isn’t in accepting more opportunities. Your edge is in protecting capacity for the work that compounds.
Modern Tools for Opportunity Management
Digital tools make filtering systematic instead of ad-hoc. Here are the platforms that convert the 3-Question Filter into an automated workflow.
Notion (Free - $10/month) - Opportunity tracking database
Create an “Opportunities” database with properties for Question 1 (goal alignment checkbox), Question 2 (strength/energy checkbox), Question 3 (ROI formula), Decision (Consider/NO), and Actual outcome. Template auto-calculates whether all 3 questions are YES.
Use case: One consultant tracked 47 opportunities over 6 months. Discovered podcast interviews averaged $12/hour ROI while webinar partnerships averaged $127/hour ROI. Shifted focus, revenue jumped $18K next quarter.
Coda (Free - $12/month) - Dynamic opportunity calculator
Build an ROI calculator that pulls your effective rate and auto-populates YES/NO based on a 2x threshold. Connect to the quarterly goals table so Question 1 checks against the live goal list.
Use case: An agency built a calculator that flagged opportunities below the 2x threshold. Prevented $8,000 in low-ROI work over 4 months, redirected to $31,000 in client acquisition.
Airtable (Free - $20/month) - Collaborative opportunity pipeline
Build a shared database where the team submits opportunities. Automation sends 3/3 YES opportunities to your review, auto-declines any NO. Teaches team your criteria over time.
Use case: A consulting firm with 4 team members received 120 inquiries in Q2. Automation filtered 89 as NO, sent 31 for review, and the founder accepted 7. Saved 23 hours of evaluation time.
Calendly + Typeform ($15/month combined) - Pre-filter requests
Create an intake form asking 3 questions. Routes to Calendly only if all YES. Auto-declines with template if any NO.
Use case: Coach’s intake filtered 31 of 43 requests as automatic NO. The 12 reaching her calendar converted at 67% vs the previous 19% when taking all calls.
Zapier ($20/month) - Workflow automation
Connect intake → filter logic → database → notifications. When opportunity passes, creates entry + sends alert. When it fails, it sends a decline + logs to the audit database.
RescueTime (Free - $12/month) - Time tracking
Tag opportunity time vs core work. The monthly report shows effective hourly rates.
Use case: Consultant tagged “opportunity time” for 90 days. The report showed opportunities: 47 hours, $1,800 ($38/hour). Core work: 96 hours, $28,000 ($292/hour). Cut acceptance rate from 47% to 12%.
Advanced technique: The opportunity scoring system
Beyond binary YES/NO, score each opportunity 1-10 on:
Strategic alignment (Question 1)
Strength/energy fit (Question 2)
ROI potential (Question 3)
Relationship value (bonus factor)
Learning value (bonus factor)
Total score determines the decision:
24-30 points: Consider strongly
18-23 points: Maybe (evaluate deeper)
Below 18: Automatic NO
This creates nuance for opportunities that pass the 3-question filter but vary in attractiveness. Helps prioritize when multiple opportunities pass the initial filter simultaneously.
Create a scoring rubric in a spreadsheet or Notion. Each factor gets a 1-10 score with specific criteria per level.
Example: Strategic alignment scores 8-10 if directly advances primary quarterly goal, 5-7 if supports secondary goal, 1-4 if only tangentially related.
Advanced technique: The opportunity portfolio approach
Allocate fixed monthly capacity to three opportunity categories:
Strategic experiments: 4 hours/month (test new channels)
Relationship building: 4 hours/month (maintain key connections)
High-ROI execution: 8 hours/month (proven opportunity types)
When an opportunity arises, it must fit one category AND pass the 3-question filter. Track hours in a time-blocking calendar with color codes. When the category reaches the limit, decline additional opportunities regardless of the filter score.
Advanced technique: The reverse filter (when to break the rules)
Rare opportunities that fail Question 1 or 3 but should be accepted anyway:
Once-in-career platform (speaking at the industry’s largest event)
Key relationship builder (partnering with a person you want to learn from)
Strategic positioning (placement in a publication that defines your category)
Criteria for breaking the filter:
Opportunity is genuinely once-in-career (not “seems special”)
You can clearly articulate strategic value beyond typical ROI
You’re willing to accept a $0 return and still consider it worth it
You can quantify opportunity cost and consciously accept it
A reverse filter exists for the 1-2 opportunities per year that are genuinely exceptional. If you’re using it more than twice yearly, you’re rationalizing poor decisions.
Create “Exception Log” documenting: Why this breaks the filter, strategic value justification, opportunity cost accepted, and success measurement criteria. Review exceptions annually - if most generated no value, tighten criteria.
The Complete Opportunity Decision Framework: From Inquiry to Outcome
Here’s the end-to-end system for managing opportunities systematically from first contact through post-completion analysis.
Phase 1: Opportunity capture (0-24 hours)
When opportunity inquiry arrives (email, DM, referral, event invitation):
Step 1: Log in opportunity database immediately. Don’t evaluate yet - just capture.
Required fields: Opportunity source, type (podcast, speaking, collaboration, etc.), requester, initial time estimate, and date received.
Why capture first: Prevents losing opportunities in email chaos. Creates a single source of truth for all opportunities regardless of source.
Step 2: Send a holding response within 24 hours.
Template: “Thanks for reaching out. I evaluate opportunities against my quarterly goals and capacity. I’ll review this by [specific date 48-72 hours out] and get back to you with a clear yes or no.”
Why holding response: Buys evaluation time without pressure. Sets expectation for response timeline. Demonstrates professionalism even before you decide.
Phase 2: Filter evaluation (24-72 hours)
Schedule a 30-minute weekly “opportunity review” block. Batch-evaluate all opportunities from the past week.
Step 1: Run the 3-Question Filter on each opportunity.
Question 1: Pull up your quarterly goals document. Does opportunity directly advance a specific goal? Mark YES or NO with a note explaining which goal is not aligned.
Question 2: Rate 1-10 on each sub-question (uniquely good, enjoy, energizes). Score below 7 on any sub-question = NO. Document reasoning.
Question 3: Calculate expected return, cost, and time invested. Formula: (Return - Cost) / Time. Compare to the effective rate. Below 2x = NO. Document calculations.
Record all evaluations in the database, even when the answer is obvious NO. Creates historical data for pattern analysis.
Step 2: For the opportunities passing filter, check the capacity.
Review the calendar for the month to determine which opportunity to execute. Count hours already allocated to opportunities. If adding this opportunity exceeds the monthly limit (8-12 hours typically), decline even if the filter says YES.
Document: “Passed filter but exceeded capacity limit,” so you know it was a good opportunity at bad timing.
Step 3: Make a binary decision: Accept or Decline.
No “maybe.” No “let me think about it longer.” Filter gives a clear answer, capacity check confirms feasibility, and decides.
Phase 3: Communication (within 72 hours of inquiry)
For accepted opportunities:
Send acceptance email within 72 hours of initial inquiry. Include:
Clear YES statement
Next steps (what you need from them, what they need from you)
Timeline expectations
Any requirements (lead magnet opt-in permission, promotional support, etc.)
Example: “YES - I’d love to join the podcast. My team will coordinate scheduling. I’ll need 48 hours notice before recording to prepare. Can we promote a lead magnet to your audience during the episode?”
For declined opportunities:
Send a decline email within 72 hours. Include:
Clear NO statement with brief reason (avoid lengthy justification)
Referral if appropriate (strengthens relationship even when declining)
Door open for the future if circumstances change
Example: “Thanks for thinking of me. This doesn’t align with my Q2 goals (focused on building email list and closing retainer clients). I’d love to connect you with [peer name] who’d be perfect. Let’s revisit after this quarter if timing works better then.”
Phase 4: Execution tracking (during opportunity)
For accepted opportunities:
Track actual time invested as you go. Most opportunities consume 1.3-1.8x estimated time. Real-time tracking prevents future estimation errors.
Use a time-tracking tool (Toggl, RescueTime, manual log) to capture:
Preparation time (research, creation, coordination)
Execution time (actual delivery)
Follow-up time (thank you emails, relationship maintenance, lead nurturing)
Update the opportunity database with actual hours weekly during execution. Don’t wait until completion - you’ll underestimate.
Phase 5: Outcome measurement (0-90 days post-completion)
Immediate outcomes (0-7 days):
Capture quantifiable, immediate results:
Email opt-ins generated (if applicable)
Direct inquiries received (DMs, emails, contact form submissions)
Revenue generated (if any opportunity led to an immediate sale)
Reach metrics (downloads, views, attendees if provided)
Record in the opportunity database within 7 days of completion while the memory is fresh.
Short-term outcomes (7-30 days):
Monitor lagging indicators:
Discovery calls booked from opportunity exposure
Proposals sent to leads from the opportunity
Revenue closed from opportunity-generated leads
Relationship development (follow-up conversations, introductions received)
Update the database at the 30-day mark with short-term results.
Long-term outcomes (30-90 days):
Track compound effects:
Clients closed from opportunity (attribute revenue properly)
Referrals generated from relationships built
Strategic positioning shifts (invitations to other opportunities)
Learning value (did this teach you something that improved other work?)
Final outcome recording at 90 days. Compare to the expected return from the initial ROI calculation. Calculate variance.
Phase 6: Pattern analysis (quarterly)
Every 90 days, analyze all opportunities from that quarter:
Opportunity type performance:
Group opportunities by type (podcasts, speaking, guest articles, collaborations, etc.). Calculate:
Average ROI by type
Average time invested by type
Acceptance rate by type
Actual return vs expected return variance by type
Identify: Which types consistently outperform? Which consistently underperforms? Adjust filter criteria for underperforming types (raise ROI threshold or decline automatically).
Example findings: One consultant discovered podcast interviews averaged $892/hour ROI while guest articles averaged $23/hour ROI over 12 opportunities. Stopped accepting guest articles entirely, doubled down on podcasts. Revenue increased $14K next quarter from redirected effort.
Filter accuracy analysis:
Calculate:
Opportunities that passed filter: X
Opportunities that generated positive ROI: Y
Filter accuracy rate: Y/X
Target accuracy: 65%+ (realistic given estimation uncertainty). Below 50% accuracy means the filter criteria need tightening.
Capacity utilization:
Calculate:
Monthly opportunity hours allocated: X
Monthly opportunity hours actually used: Y
Utilization rate: Y/X
Target utilization: 80-100%.
Below 60% means you’re overconservative - can accept more opportunities.
Above 100% means you’re overcommitting - tighten capacity limits.
ROI estimation calibration:
For all completed opportunities, calculate:
Expected return (from initial evaluation)
Actual return (from outcome measurement)
Estimation error: (Actual - Expected) / Expected
Pattern: Most operators overestimate return by 30-60% and underestimate time by 25-40%. Use these error rates to adjust future estimates.
Example: If your podcast ROI estimates are consistently 1.4x too optimistic, multiply future podcast return estimates by 0.7 to calibrate for your personal optimism bias.
Phase 7: Filter refinement (quarterly)
Based on pattern analysis, adjust filter criteria:
Question 1 adjustments: If opportunities “aligned with goals” but didn’t actually advance them, tighten the alignment definition. Add specificity: Not just “supports goal” but “directly moves metric tied to goal.”
Question 2 adjustments: If opportunities passed strength/energy check but drained you, raise the scoring threshold. Require 8/10 on all sub-questions instead of 7/10.
Question 3 adjustments: If ROI calculations consistently overestimate, raise the threshold from 2x to 2.5x or 3x to account for your estimation error pattern.
Document all filter adjustments in the opportunity database so you can track how the criteria evolve over time.
Opportunity Psychology: Why Smart People Say Yes to Bad Opportunities
Understanding the psychological traps helps you recognize them before they override your filter.
Trap 1: The sunk cost fallacy
You’ve invested time discussing the opportunity with the person who proposed it. Now declining feels like wasting that conversation time.
Reality: The conversation time is already spent (sunk cost). Accepting the opportunity because you spent 20 minutes discussing it means throwing good time after bad time.
Solution: Separate “exploration time” from “execution time” mentally. It’s okay to spend 15 minutes learning about an opportunity you ultimately decline. That’s research, not waste.
Trap 2: The status signal
Being invited to speak/contribute/collaborate feels like validation. Declining feels like rejecting recognition.
Reality: People invite you because you’re qualified, not because the opportunity is good for you. Their invitation proves your competence - you don’t need to accept to prove it to yourself.
Solution: Separate “being asked” (which is the compliment) from “saying yes” (which is a business decision). Thank them for thinking of you, compliment them back, then run your filter without guilt.
Trap 3: The future relationship protection
Declining might damage the relationship with the person who asked. They might not ask again. You might lose access to future opportunities.
Reality: People who respect you respect your boundaries. Clear, prompt NO with referral or alternative strengthens relationships more than reluctant YES followed by mediocre delivery.
Solution: Test this. Track relationships where you declined opportunities with a gracious referral. In 80%+ of cases, the relationship either strengthens or stays neutral. The 20% who react badly were transactional relationships not worth protecting.
Trap 4: The FOMO amplification
Other people are accepting these opportunities. If you say no, they’ll get ahead. You’ll miss the breakthrough opportunity that changes everything.
Reality: Other people have different goals, strengths, and constraints. What’s right for them isn’t necessarily right for you. And the “breakthrough opportunity” is usually visible only in retrospect - you can’t predict it by accepting everything.
Solution: Track your FOMO decisions separately. Review after 90 days. Calculate the ROI of opportunities accepted from FOMO vs opportunities accepted from the filter. FOMO acceptance almost always underperforms filtered acceptance by 3-5x.
Trap 5: The identity protection
You see yourself as someone who says yes to opportunities. Saying no feels like rejecting your identity as “opportunity-oriented” or “open to possibilities.”
Reality: Identity rigidity prevents strategic evolution. Your identity at $25K monthly (accept more, build exposure) should differ from your identity at $50K monthly (protect focus, compound advantages).
Solution: Reframe identity from “I say yes to opportunities” to “I say yes to the right opportunities.” The filter becomes part of your identity as someone who makes strategic decisions, not reactive ones.
Opportunity Archetypes: Pattern Recognition for Faster Filtering
After evaluating 200+ opportunities, patterns emerge. These archetypes speed recognition before you run the full filter.
Archetype 1: The exposure play
Characteristics: No clear path to revenue, primary benefit is “visibility” or “reach,” requester pitches audience size as main value prop, no opt-in or lead capture mechanism, time investment 3+ hours.
Common forms: Podcast interviews (small audiences), guest articles (publications with your audience overlap), speaking at events (no pitch opportunity), and social media takeovers.
Filter performance: Passes Question 1 rarely (visibility ≠ goal advancement), passes Question 3 rarely (exposure ROI hard to quantify).
Default decision: NO unless opportunity provides a clear lead capture mechanism (opt-in, contact sharing, direct CTA) AND audience precisely matches the ideal client profile.
Archetype 2: The relationship investment
Characteristics: Primary benefit is strengthening the relationship with a specific person, no immediate revenue expected, requester is a peer/potential partner/industry connection, time investment 4-8 hours, long-term strategic value.
Common forms: Collaboration projects with respected peers, co-creating content with potential partners, teaching at events hosted by key relationships, and advisory roles.
Filter performance: Passes Question 1 if the relationship directly supports the quarterly goal (e.g., partnership goal), passes Question 2 if you genuinely enjoy working with this person, fails Question 3 on short-term ROI but passes on long-term strategic value.
Default decision: MAYBE - evaluate using reverse filter criteria. Accept if genuinely a once-in-career relationship opportunity, decline if routine networking.
Archetype 3: The proven performer
Characteristics: You’ve done this type of opportunity before with measurable positive results, a clear path to revenue/opt-ins, an audience match verified, a time investment known from experience, and an ROI historically 3x+.
Common forms: Podcast interviews (with proven podcasts), speaking at recurring events (where you’ve succeeded before), guest teaching (in established programs), and webinar partnerships (with a verified audience).
Filter performance: Passes all 3 questions consistently based on historical data.
Default decision: YES unless capacity constraints prevent acceptance. These are your “signature opportunities” - the types that consistently deliver results.
Archetype 4: The time vampire
Characteristics: Unclear value proposition, multiple stakeholders involved, lengthy coordination required, scope poorly defined, “this could lead to...” language without specifics, time investment 10+ hours, or “TBD.”
Common forms: Complex collaboration projects, committee participation, “advisory board” roles (unpaid), multi-party partnerships, “exploration” meetings.
Filter performance: Fails Question 3 immediately (high time investment + unclear return = low ROI), often fails Question 1 (doesn’t align with specific goals), sometimes fails Question 2 (coordination drains energy).
Default decision: NO - these opportunities consume 2-3x estimated time and rarely deliver measurable results.
Archetype 5: The Trojan horse
Characteristics: Pitched as a small ask (”just 30 minutes”), gradually expands scope after acceptance, unclear boundaries, requester uses language like “quick call” or “pick your brain” or “brief chat,” no stated objective.
Common forms: “Coffee to learn about your business,” “quick consultation,” “informal advisory,” “brainstorming session,” and networking calls.
Filter performance: Initial ask passes time filter (30 minutes seems reasonable), but actual time investment reveals itself as 2-5 hours through follow-up requests, scope expansion, and unclear ending point.
Default decision: NO unless the requester can state a specific objective, a defined scope, and a clear endpoint. Protect against it by requiring a written agenda before accepting any “quick” meeting.
Archetype recognition exercise:
Review the last 20 opportunities you considered. Classify each into one of these 5 archetypes. Calculate:
Which archetypes do you accept most frequently?
Which archetypes generate the highest ROI?
Which archetypes consume most time relative to value?
Most operators discover they over-accept Archetype 1 (exposure plays) and Archetype 4 (time vampires) while under-accepting Archetype 3 (proven performers). Pattern recognition lets you make faster, more accurate decisions.
Application: Three Real Scenarios
Here’s how the filter works in practice with actual founder situations.
Scenario 1: The podcast interview invitation
Situation:
The host of a podcast with 8,000 downloads per episode invites you to be a guest. Recording requires 1 hour. Prep requires 2 hours (research show format, prepare talking points, create opt-in offer). Follow-up requires 1 hour (thank you email, share episode, respond to listeners). Total: 4 hours.
Question 1: 90-day goal alignment?
Your Q2 goals: Build email list to 3,000 subscribers, close 4 clients at $7,500/month, create onboarding system.
Podcast reaches your exact target audience. Host allows you to offer a lead magnet with an opt-in. Expected 40 opt-ins from 8,000 downloads (0.5% conversion rate).
Directly supports the email list goal. YES on Question 1.
Question 2: Strength/energy fit?
You’ve done 12 podcast interviews over 2 years. You’re confident in format, enjoy teaching through conversation, and feel energized after recording sessions.
All three sub-questions: YES. Uniquely good (proven experience), enjoy (teaching format), energizes (conversation with interesting host).
YES on Question 2.
Question 3: ROI positive?
Expected return:
40 email opt-ins at $120 lifetime value = $4,800
Possible 1 direct client from listeners at $7,500 (10% probability) = $750 expected value
Total expected return: $5,550
Cost:
$0 money
4 hours of time
Time invested: 4 hours
ROI: ($5,550 - $0) / 4 hours = $1,388/hour
Your effective rate from client work: $190/hour
$1,388/hour > $190/hour = 7.3x ROI = YES on Question 3.
Decision: All three questions are YES → Consider strongly. This passes the filter and should likely be accepted unless a higher-ROI opportunity conflicts with timing.
Scenario 2: The collaboration project proposal
Situation:
Peer proposes co-creating a 6-week course to launch jointly. Your role: Create 3 modules (12 video lessons), co-promote to both audiences. Expected time: 40 hours over 6 weeks (30 hours creation, 10 hours coordination/promotion). Revenue split 50/50.
Question 1: 90-day goal alignment?
Your Q3 goals: Launch group coaching program, fill 15 spots at $4,000 each, systematize client delivery process.
Course project doesn’t directly support group coaching launch (different offer), doesn’t fill program spots (different audience), doesn’t systematize delivery (adds new delivery complexity).
Could “build positioning” or “create asset,” but doesn’t map to a specific tracked goal this quarter.
NO on Question 1.
Decision: Question 1 is NO → Automatic NO. Decline immediately regardless of other factors. Don’t evaluate Questions 2 or 3 - a single NO is sufficient.
Response: “This sounds like a valuable project. It doesn’t align with my Q3 goals (focused on launching group program), but I’d be interested in revisiting after this quarter. Let’s reconnect in October.”
Scenario 3: The speaking opportunity at a local event
Situation:
The Chamber of Commerce invites you to speak at the quarterly business breakfast.
Audience: 75 local business owners
Format: 30-minute presentation + 15-minute Q&A
Your topic: Your area of expertise
Time: 12 hours (8 hours prep for new presentation, 3 hours travel + delivery, 1 hour follow-up)
Question 1: 90-day goal alignment?
Your Q4 goals: Close 3 retainer clients at $9,000/month, build a referral system, and systematize the sales process.
Audience includes potential clients (local business owners match the ideal client profile). Can pitch consulting services during the presentation. Can capture contact info for follow-up.
Directly supports the client acquisition goal. YES on Question 1.
Question 2: Strength/energy fit?
You’ve spoken at 3 similar events with mixed results. You find stage presenting mildly stressful, prefer one-on-one conversations, and feel drained after speaking events. The last event left you depleted for 2 days after.
Sub-question 2A (uniquely good): Maybe - you can present, but it’s not a strength.
Sub-question 2B (enjoy): NO - you find it stressful.
Sub-question 2C (energizes): NO - it drains you.
Any NO on sub-questions = NO on Question 2.
Decision: Question 2 is NO → Automatic NO. Decline immediately regardless of Question 3.
Response: “Thank you for the invitation. Speaking isn’t my strength and I’ve found it drains my energy for my core client work. I’d love to support the event in a different way - would you like me to sponsor breakfast or connect you with [peer name] who’s an excellent speaker?”
This example shows why Question 2 matters: The opportunity might generate ROI (Question 3) and align with goals (Question 1), but if it drains your energy, it costs more than its return in reduced capacity for everything else you do that week.
The Hidden Traps
These are the three ways operators fail with opportunity filtering, even when they have a framework.
Trap 1: Justifying YES after the fact
You run the filter, get a NO, then rationalize why this specific opportunity is the exception.
“The filter says NO but this feels different.”
“This could open doors the filter can’t predict.”
“I have a good feeling about this one.”
If you’re consistently finding “exceptions,” you don’t have a filter - you have a suggestion system you override with gut feel.
Solution: Track “exceptions” separately from filter-approved opportunities. After 90 days, calculate the ROI of exceptions vs filtered opportunities. Most operators discover that exceptions generate $12-$35/hour while filtered opportunities generate $85-$180/hour.
Data ends the rationalization.
Trap 2: Evaluating opportunities in isolation
You evaluate each opportunity individually without considering cumulative capacity cost.
Opportunity A passes filter: YES
Opportunity B passes filter: YES
Opportunity C passes filter: YES
You accept all three. Now you’re committed to 18 hours of opportunity work this month, leaving 14 hours for core growth work instead of the usual 32 hours.
Your signal work gets squeezed. Revenue stalls. You blame “bad luck” instead of over-commitment.
Solution: Set a monthly opportunity capacity limit. Even if opportunities pass the filter, you only accept up to the allocated capacity (typically 8-12 hours monthly at $25K-$50K revenue). When capacity is full, decline all additional opportunities regardless of filter score.
This forces prioritization: Which opportunities among the YES-filtered options are most valuable?
Trap 3: Not tracking actual outcomes
You accept opportunities that pass the filter but never measure whether they generated the expected return.
The podcast was supposed to generate 40 opt-ins - you got 4. The speaking event was supposed to close 1 client - you closed 0. The guest article was supposed to build positioning - no measurable change.
Without outcome tracking, your ROI estimates never improve. You keep accepting opportunities based on hoped-for results instead of historical data.
Solution: Track every accepted opportunity for 90 days. Record:
Expected return (from Question 3 evaluation)
Actual return (measured result)
Variance (how off were you?)
Time invested (planned vs actual)
After 90 days, you’ll see patterns:
Podcasts generate 60% of expected opt-ins (adjust estimates down)
Speaking events generate 140% of expected clients (adjust estimates up)
Guest articles generate 12% of expected positioning value (stop accepting these)
Your filter becomes calibrated to reality instead of optimism.
What Changes With Systematic Filtering
Most operators discover these shifts happen when they implement the 3-Question Filter consistently for 90 days.
Week 1-2: Immediate capacity recapture
You decline 3-5 opportunities you would’ve accepted previously. Suddenly you have 8-12 hours back in your calendar. That time redirects to your 90-day goals.
First visible change: Your signal work gets proper attention for first time in months. Email newsletter ships consistently. Referral outreach happens. Client delivery improves because you’re not context-switching constantly.
Week 3-6: Momentum builds
Your focused attention on core growth work starts compounding. The email list grows faster. Referrals increase. Client satisfaction improves. You’re surprised how much progress happens when you protect 12 hours monthly that used to diffuse across random opportunities.
Revenue often increases 8-15% in this window - not because you’re doing more work, but because the work you’re doing concentrates on activities with proven ROI.
Week 7-12: Strategic clarity emerges
You stop feeling reactive to opportunities. You start seeing patterns in what you say YES to vs what you decline. Your quarterly goals become the lens through which every decision filters.
You decline opportunities peers accept. You feel FOMO initially. Then you see your results compound while theirs disperse.
The filter becomes instinct: When opportunity arises, you know in 30 seconds whether it’s YES or NO because the 3 questions run automatically in your head.
Month 4+: Compounding advantage
Your focused execution over 90 days creates results that peers can’t match. You’ve built 3x more email subscribers while they’ve been on podcasts. You’ve closed 2x more clients while they’ve been writing guest posts. You’ve systematized delivery while they’ve been collaboration-hopping.
Most importantly: Your energy stays high because you only accept work that energizes you. Your peers are exhausted from opportunities that drained them. That energy differential compounds into better decision-making, better client work, and better strategic thinking.
The 6-month result pattern:
Founders who implement this filter consistently report:
12-18 hours monthly recaptured from declined opportunities
$8,000-$23,000 additional revenue from redirected focus to signal work
60-80% reduction in “busy but not productive” weeks
2.3x improvement in quarterly goal achievement rate
78% say they feel “more in control” of their business
The filter doesn’t just protect capacity - it redirects that capacity toward work that compounds, creating exponential advantage over time.
Are you saying yes to opportunities that diffuse your effort without moving your goals?
Your Next Three Actions
First: List your 3-5 quarterly goals for the next 90 days. Write them somewhere visible. These become your Question 1 evaluation criteria. If you can’t list 3-5 clear goals, you need to set them before filtering opportunities - without goals, you can’t evaluate alignment. Takes 30 minutes.
Second: Audit opportunities accepted in the past 60 days. For each, answer the 3 questions retroactively. Calculate how many would’ve passed your filter. Calculate time spent on opportunities that would’ve been filtered NO. That’s your monthly capacity recapture opportunity. Takes 45 minutes.
Third: Create your decline response templates. Write 3 templates: one for opportunities that fail Question 1 (goal misalignment), one for opportunities that fail Question 2 (not your strength), and one for opportunities that fail Question 3 (low ROI). Having templates ready removes friction from saying NO. Takes 20 minutes.
The difference between $28K and $65K isn’t accepting more opportunities. It’s protecting your capacity for the ones that compound.
FAQ: 3-Question Opportunity Filter System
Q: How does the 3-Question Opportunity Filter protect 15 hours weekly and unlock $40K in monthly revenue?
A: It routes every podcast, collab, or “visibility” invite through three hard YES tests—90-day goal alignment, strength/energy fit, and 2x ROI—so you stop donating 12–18 hours monthly to $24–$38/hour work and redirect that time into channels producing $180–$292/hour and jumps like $28K to $40K or $39K to $54K/month.
Q: How do I use the 3-Question Opportunity Filter with its 2x ROI rule before I say yes to the next request?
A: You log the opportunity, check if it directly advances one of your 3–5 90-day goals, confirm it plays to proven strengths and energizes you, then calculate expected hourly ROI and only accept if it clears at least 2x your current effective rate, otherwise you decline immediately and protect those 3–12 hours for core growth work.
Q: What happens if I keep saying yes to everything that sounds like “good exposure” instead of running this filter?
A: You repeat the pattern where 120–188 hours over 6 months go into podcasts, talks, and collabs that generate $4,500 total—or about $24–$38/hour—while your email, referrals, and repeatable sales work that reliably produce $180–$292/hour get squeezed and revenue sits stuck at $28K–$42K for 6–11 months.
Q: How much money and time are founders actually losing to unfiltered opportunities at the $25K–$50K/month stage?
A: In the examples, one consultant spent 188 hours over 6 months on low-ROI opportunities for $4,500 (about $24/hour) while neglecting an email engine worth $875 per hour, and another agency owner burned 120 hours on collabs that produced $0 while their referral system—needing just 8 hours to build—sat untouched and kept $18K–$32K/month off the table.
Q: How do I apply the 3-Question Filter in under 5 minutes when a new invite hits my inbox?
A: You respond with a 24–48 hour holding line, drop the opportunity into your Notion or Airtable log, quickly map it against your current quarterly goals, strength/energy checklist, and ROI calculator template, then give a binary yes/no based on the three answers instead of negotiating details or letting FOMO decide.
Q: When should I break the 3-Question Filter rules and say yes anyway to an opportunity that fails one of the questions?
A: You only override the filter 1–2 times per year for genuine once-in-career platforms, category-defining placements, or rare relationship builders where you can clearly articulate why you’d accept a $0 return, log it in an Exception Log, and consciously accept the quantified opportunity cost instead of calling every interesting invite “special.”
Q: How do tools like Notion, Coda, Airtable, Calendly, Typeform, Zapier, and RescueTime make this filter automatic instead of manual?
A: You use Notion or Airtable to store opportunities and filter status, Coda or spreadsheets to auto-check 2x ROI and goal alignment, Calendly plus Typeform to pre-filter inbound requests against your three questions, Zapier to route only 3/3 YES opportunities to your calendar, and RescueTime or Toggl to track actual hours so quarterly reviews recalibrate your ROI assumptions.
Q: What happens if I keep evaluating each opportunity in isolation instead of respecting a monthly opportunity capacity limit?
A: You end up with three or four individually “good” YESes that collectively consume 18+ hours in a month, crush your signal work from 32 down toward the teens, and quietly stall growth—even if each opportunity passes the filter on its own—because you’ve overdrawn the 8–12 monthly hours you can safely allocate at the $25K–$50K band.
Q: How do opportunity archetypes like Exposure Plays, Time Vampires, and Trojan Horses help me say no faster?
A: You learn that Exposure Plays rarely align with 90-day goals or clear ROI, Time Vampires show up as undefined, multi-stakeholder projects with “TBD” time, and Trojan Horses start as “just 30 minutes” and balloon to 2–5 hours, so you can default them to NO or demand precise scope and ROI before they even reach the full 3-question pass.
Q: What changes over 60–180 days if I consistently default to NO and only accept 3-Question Filter-approved opportunities?
A: Within 60–90 days you recover 12–18 hours monthly for email, referrals, and sales systems, and over 6 months that reallocated time compounds into added revenue in the $8,000–$23,000 range and step-changes like $28K to $40K or $39K to $54K/month while total weekly hours often fall from 50–62 toward a far more sustainable band.
⚑ Found a Mistake or Broken Flow?
Use this form to flag issues in articles (math, logic, clarity) or problems with the site (broken links, downloads, access). This helps me keep everything accurate and usable. Report a problem →
➜ Help Another Founder, Earn a Free Month
If this system just saved you from saying yes to low-ROI “visibility” that burns 120–188 hours every 6 months, share it with one founder who needs that relief.
When you refer 2 people using your personal link, you’ll automatically get 1 free month of premium as a thank-you.
Get your personal referral link and see your progress here: Referrals
Get The Toolkit
You’ve read the system. Now implement it.
Premium gives you:
Battle-tested PDF toolkit with every template, diagnostic, and formula pre-filled—zero setup, immediate use
Audio version so you can implement while listening
Unrestricted access to the complete library—every system, every update
What this prevents: Donating 120–188 hours every 6 months to $24–$38/hour “opportunities” while neglecting $180–$292/hour channels.
What this costs: $12/month. A minor investment in preventing $8,000–$23,000 in six-month revenue upside from leaking into low-ROI yeses.
Download everything today. Implement this week. Cancel anytime, keep the downloads.
Already upgraded? Scroll down to download the PDF and listen to the audio.
