Where to put things so you can find them again

The problem with most filing systems is not that they are messy. It is that they are organised by the wrong thing.

You build folders by topic. Marketing, Finance, Ideas, Research. That makes intuitive sense when you are setting the system up. But work does not arrive by topic. It arrives as projects.

You get a client brief. You start a launch. You run a campaign. All of these pull from Marketing and Finance and Ideas and Research at the same time. The topic folders do not help you find things for a specific project. They give you more places to look.

Tiago Forte identified this problem and built a better structure around it. He calls it P.A.R.A. He has written about it in depth at fortelabs.com. The original work is his. What follows is how I explain it to myself, and how I use it.

The four categories

Projects — a series of tasks with a goal and a deadline. It ends.

Areas — a sphere of ongoing activity with a standard to maintain. It does not end.

Resources — a topic of ongoing interest with no active outcome attached.

Archive — anything inactive from the other three.

Four categories. The categories are not novel. What matters is the distinction between the first two.

The distinction that does the work

A project ends. An area does not.

Running a marathon is a project. Health is an area. Publishing a book is a project. Writing is an area. Building a client onboarding system is a project. Client delivery is an area.

Most filing systems collapse these together. They store "fitness notes" alongside "marathon training plan" as if they are the same kind of thing. They are not. One has a deadline and a finish line. One does not.

When you mix them, you cannot tell how many real projects you have. You cannot close anything out. Completed projects sit in the same pile as ongoing areas and feel like they are still active. The list never shrinks.

Three things break when you cannot tell the difference

You cannot know your real workload. "Hiring" tells you nothing about capacity. "Four named projects with deadlines" tells you everything. A clear project list is a load-bearing document. Without it, you are guessing at your own schedule.

You cannot stay motivated. A list that never changes is demoralising by design. Projects complete. Something starts. Something ends. That rhythm is what makes work feel like it is moving. Areas are important. They do not give you the same closure.

You cannot see your progress. Ask anyone what they achieved last year and watch them struggle. Closed projects are the answer. They are the visible record of what actually got done.

The project list is not just an organisational tool. It is the primary record of what you have done.

Hobbies and dreams

Forte makes a distinction worth keeping.

A project with no matching goal is a hobby. A goal with no matching project is a dream. Both are fine. Neither is progress.

This is useful not because it is harsh but because it is clarifying. If you have a goal with no project attached to it, you are not working on it. You are thinking about working on it. The project is the commitment.

Look at your goal list. For each item, ask: is there an active project with tasks and a deadline? If not, it is a dream — which is fine to hold, but worth knowing.

One list, everywhere

The most important rule in practice: define your projects on paper first, before any tool.

Name them clearly. Be specific. "Agency" is not a project. "Write and publish three blog posts for Q3" is a project.

Then replicate that exact list across every app you use. Same words, same capitalisation.

This sounds like unnecessary duplication. It is not. It gives you the consistency of a central system and the adaptability of using the right tool for each context. Your project list in Notion should match your list in your notes app should match your to-do app. One glance tells you where you stand.

The moment the lists diverge, you have two systems. Two systems means cognitive overhead every time you switch context.

The four rule

Four categories wide. No more than four levels deep.

This is a constraint, not a law. Forte offers it as a limit on complexity. If your system needs a fifth category or a fifth level of nesting, the system has probably grown past the point of usefulness.

The purpose of a filing system is to make retrieval fast. Depth kills retrieval. Breadth kills it more slowly. Four by four is a useful ceiling on both.

How I use this

My working reality is split across Obsidian and Notion. They do different things and they do not try to do each other's job.

Obsidian is the vault — C:\Dev\knowledge\. This is where permanent notes live. Processed thinking, reference material, journal entries, post-mortems on projects that closed. It is a library. It is not a project manager.

Notion is the active layer. Current projects with real deadlines. CRM context for people I work with. Running documents I need to access quickly. The things that need to move.

projects/active/ in the vault holds a context note for each active project — what it is, what the goal is, what decisions I have made. The code lives in C:\Dev\projects\active\. The notes live in the vault. Neither holds both.

The archive does the most work at the margin. When a project closes, the notes go into the vault under the relevant area or resource. The project folder gets archived. It disappears from the active list.

That last step is the one most people skip. They keep a graveyard of half-done projects in the active folder because archiving feels final. The point is that it is final. That is what makes the remaining list trustworthy.

A list you trust is the only kind worth maintaining.