Skip to content

decision-frameworks

Applies structured analytical frameworks — expected value thinking, regret minimization, and pre-mortems — to difficult decisions. Use when user wants a specific framework applied, mentions 'decision framework,' 'expected value,' 'pre-mortem,' or 'decision paralysis.' For 1:1 strategic coaching with personal context, see ask-zeus. For multi-perspective board debate, see ask-boardroom.

  • Area: Strategy
  • Category: product management
  • Level: beginner
  • Input: conversation
  • Output: document
  • Setup: none
  • Roles: CEO / Founder, Product Manager

Applies structured analytical frameworks — expected value thinking, regret minimization, and pre-mortems — to difficult decisions.

How you ask

  • “Help me decide using expected value thinking”
  • “Run a pre-mortem on our product launch plan”
  • “Apply regret minimization to this career decision”
  • “I'm stuck between two options — help me think it through”

Inputs

  • request — The decision to structure, its owner, its deadline, and the options already on the table.
  • scope — company, or a client-id under {company.clients}/ — a string with one reserved value, not a closed set
  • reversibility-triage — Output of the reversibility-assessment route, read back so the chosen depth of analysis is justified rather than assumed.
  • request — The choice to compare and what is already known to be unknown about it.
  • request — The options to price, plus any probability, upside, or cost figures the caller already holds.
  • request — The choice and the time horizon the caller wants to be judged against.
  • request — The plan or commitment to stress, and the horizon at which failure is imagined.
  • preferred-option — The option already favoured — the pre-mortem has nothing to attack without it.
  • decision-brief — Brief from the full-decision or lightweight route, read back so the failure modes attack the recorded assumptions rather than freshly invented ones.
  • request — The decision to classify and what undoing it would cost in time, money, and credibility.

Outputs

  • Decision statement, options table, per-option assumptions with confidence labels, analysis under each framework, recommendation, success criteria, and review trigger.
  • Door type, the cost and latency of reversal, and the recommended analysis depth or bias-to-action call.
  • Imagined failure narrative, ranked failure modes with their causes, and a mitigation or early-warning signal for each.
  • Options table, the dimensions they differ on, the uncertainty warning, and what evidence would upgrade the comparison to a full brief.
  • Per-option expected-value calculation with each probability and value driver labelled by source and confidence.
  • Per-option regret assessment at the stated horizon and the asymmetry that decides between them.
  • {scope.knowledge-base.product}/decision-frameworks-reversibility-{YYYY-MM-DD}.md
  • {scope.knowledge-base.product}/decision-frameworks-{YYYY-MM-DD}.md