From problem to solution in 2 models


I think I might have just got a lot of clarity about something! But it seems too easy. Here are the two models I did:

C: my work
T: Is it possible that I am convinced there is a problem to be solved (about the amount of work I do/have) when in fact there is no problem at all?
F: Intrigued
A: look at all the objective data that I can find: what tasks do I have to complete? What time do I have available? Can I do all the tasks in the time and still have plenty of time left for rest/fun? Approach it like a mystery puzzle to be solved.
R: I see the solution almost straight away: it doesn’t matter if I don’t have ‘enough’ time to get everything done. I can just happily think, ‘It will never all be done and that’s fine.’ All I need to do is make sure that, after the number of hours I choose to work per day, I stop working and stop thinking about work. Here’s the brilliant twist: in order to get better and better at doing this, I *need* each day to have things undone at the end of it – because if I didn’t, I wouldn’t have the opportunity to learn how to feel fine and switch off even with some work tasks undone. So it’s a win-win: I am able to see a real upside to the ‘things undone at the end of each day’ situation.

C: my work
T: there is a never-ending avalanche of work tasks falling on my head all the time and it’s a nightmare.
F: oppressed
A: work myself to a husk trying to fend off the avalanche and deal with everything as soon as possible after it comes in.
R: I keep choosing the avalanche! I create my own avalanche of work and more feelings of oppression by…frantically doing too much work all the time.

Model 2 is so obviously worse than Model 1 – I feel as if my problem is now totally solved, at least at the level of thought and understanding. But is this somehow too neat and perfect?