Where this lands in the operating system you already run

Compass produces candidates, bounded experiments, and evidence. It is not a management system, and it does not replace one. If your company already runs on a named operating rhythm, the output belongs inside that rhythm rather than beside it.

The mapping is short, and it is the same wherever the labels differ:

• The chosen experiment becomes a quarterly commitment — a Rock in EOS, a key result under an OKR, an initiative in a plain quarterly plan. One owner, one date.
• The stop rule and the measure become a weekly scorecard line, so the experiment is visible between reviews rather than only at the end.
• The decision date goes on the leadership meeting agenda — the Level 10 in EOS, the weekly operating meeting elsewhere — as a decision to be made, not a status update.
• The "not now" list becomes issues, each carrying its re-entry condition, so a deferral is a recorded decision that can return rather than a dropped idea.
• The quarterly review above runs inside your existing quarterly session rather than as a separate meeting.
• The direction the experiments serve belongs in whatever document already holds it — a vision/traction organizer (V/TO) in EOS, a one-page plan in Scaling Up, an annual objective elsewhere. Compass does not ask you to keep a second one.

None of this is an endorsement of a particular system, and Compass is not a competitor to EOS, Scaling Up, OKRs or any other cadence you already run. If you run EOS, use Rocks, the scorecard, the issues list, and the Level 10. If you run OKRs, use objectives, key results, and the check-in. If you run Scaling Up, use the quarterly priorities and the daily or weekly cadence you already keep. If you run none of them, a quarterly plan, a weekly measure, and one standing decision slot are enough. What matters is that the experiment has an owner, a measure, a decision date, and a place where someone will actually look at it.