One of the stranger parts of being good at things is that people eventually start using your competence as evidence that those things must be easy for you. Respectfully, absolutely not.
You are seeing the deliverable. You did not see the twelve browser tabs, the three abandoned systems, the reminder reminding me about the other reminder, or the completely unrelated task I somehow completed while avoiding the task I was actually supposed to be doing. The finished product and the cost of producing it are two different pieces of information.
I learned this distinction embarrassingly early. As a kid, I once finished a major school project in a last-minute overnight scramble, walked into class exhausted, and then listened as my teacher used the finished product as evidence that my classmates should be more like me. She saw an excellent project. I knew the process had been chaos. Both facts were true, but only one of them was visible.
Some people build elaborate systems around working memory. Some rehearse conversations. Some need uninterrupted concentration because every interruption comes with a restart fee. Some can perform at a very high level and then need substantial recovery afterward. None of that cancels competence. It explains how competence is being produced.
Workplaces often miss the cost structure
There is a strange trap here: the better you compensate, the less credible your need for flexibility can appear. Clarity, autonomy, remote work, fewer context switches, written follow-up, predictable priorities and quiet concentration time can be performance supports. They are not evidence that somebody is incapable of doing the work.
I am a fan of results. I am considerably less impressed by suffering that was completely avoidable. Competence should not require proving that nothing is hard.