There's a fractal nature to Path Design because changes (or steps or action or chunks of progress) are themselves made of smaller changes.
If I want to turn a piece of tree into a couple pieces of lumber for my house, the critical pathway might contain steps like "chopping down the tree," and "felling off smaller branches," and "cutting up the trunk into smaller pieces," and so on — necessary changes. But zooming in on each necessary change, brings up the Path Design questions all over again, just on a smaller scale.
If we were to zoom in on "chopping down the tree" for example, how does this change come about? Am I using an axe or a chainsaw? How do I prune the trunk? What chopping technique am I using?
If I'm using an axe, it's possible to zoom into that step as well — what needs to change in order for me to actually use it? I have to go to the shed, find the axe, change into the right clothing, put on work gloves, walk to the tree.
If we were to zoom in on "chopping technique", how do I grip the axe? Where do I place the first v-shaped notch? How deep should the notch be? How far should I lift the axe after each chop?
You can just zoom in it forever down to the molecular level — which neuron sends the electrical impulse to the muscle and so on. You could go really far if you want to.
The point here is: Of all the information available, only the subset that's directly relevant to the super-outcome matters. Yet, products focus on irrelevant demographic-based information when trying to design a sequence of changes between point A and point B.
The infinite complexity of how the super-outcome is produced and the forcing function(s) that set the dominoes in motion are largely ignored or, at best, inconsistently represented.
Path Design is focused on organizing sub-outcomes in an intuitive and logical way, and communicating that sequence to the user so that they are able to make sense of the process and make progress within it.