Decision Clarity Reflex Area
2026-09-21
Table of Contents
- Recognizing When Work Is Relying on a Decision
- Distinguishing Decisions From Intent, Assumption, Preference, and Open Questions
- Distinguishing Decisions From Situation, Assessment, and Consequence
- Identifying Implicit Decisions in Meetings, Documents, and Work
- Reconstructing Candidate Decisions From Messy Material
- Testing Whether a Reconstructed Decision Is Supported by the Material
- Making Decisions Explicit, Concrete, and Actionable
- Making Decisions Atomic
- Clarifying the Concrete Benefit of the Choice
- Identifying the Rejected Alternative
- Identifying the Accepted Downside
- Clarifying Decision Ownership and Authority
- Surfacing Hidden Assumptions and Undecided Dependencies
- Challenging Decisions Against Constraints and Reality
- Correcting, Narrowing, or Rejecting Candidate Decisions
- Checking Decisions for Internal Consistency
- Checking Whether the Decision Set Is Complete Enough
- Testing Whether Decisions Can Carry Commitment
- Distinguishing Decision Problems From Execution Problems
- Preserving Decision Integrity During Execution
- Changing, Reversing, and Replacing Decisions Explicitly
Recognizing When Work Is Relying on a Decision
Identifying Next Steps That Depend on an Unstated Choice
- What choice do these next steps already depend on?
- Which planned actions would change if that choice went the other way?
- What are people currently assuming without saying it explicitly?
- Is there evidence that the choice has actually been made?
- Who is already acting as though one option has been selected?
- What could go wrong if the choice remains unstated?
- What needs to be made explicit before these next steps continue?
Clarifying Whether Silence Is Being Treated as Agreement
- What is currently being inferred from nobody objecting?
- Did anyone explicitly agree to the choice being assumed?
- Could silence reasonably mean uncertainty, disengagement, or unresolved concern instead?
- Which commitment would exist if silence were interpreted as agreement?
- Who would be affected if that interpretation turned out to be wrong?
- What evidence would distinguish actual agreement from mere absence of objection?
- What should be stated explicitly before relying on this apparent agreement?
Checking What Was Actually Decided in a Meeting
- What concrete choices were actually made in this meeting?
- Which statements were only discussion, preference, recommendation, or intent?
- What did participants leave the meeting believing would happen?
- Where do the notes show a commitment rather than general alignment?
- Are different participants likely to reconstruct different decisions from the discussion?
- Which apparent decisions still depend on unresolved questions?
- What explicit decision statements should be confirmed after the meeting?
Determining Whether a Topic Is Ready for a Decision
- Is this topic still being explored, or is a real commitment now forming?
- Which uncertainties still need to remain open?
- What would be premature to state as decided at this point?
- What choice is the work actually approaching?
- What evidence shows that continuing without a decision would now create ambiguity?
- What would become costly or confusing if the topic stayed unresolved?
- Is the right next step further exploration or explicit commitment?
Recognizing Commitments That Are Becoming Difficult to Reverse
- Which current choices are becoming harder to undo?
- What upcoming action will make reversal more costly?
- Is the decision basis explicit enough before that point is crossed?
- Which assumptions or unresolved questions could later undermine the commitment?
- What downside is being accepted by proceeding now?
- What disagreement would become more expensive after commitment?
- What needs to be clarified before reversibility decreases further?
Comparing Different Interpretations Across Teams
- How is each team interpreting the same decision?
- Which parts of those interpretations are actually supported by the written commitment?
- Where do the teams disagree about scope, ownership, timing, or consequences?
- Is the disagreement caused by an unclear decision or by execution choices?
- Which interpretation requires assumptions not stated in the decision?
- What downstream work is already diverging because of these differences?
- What decision wording needs clarification before the divergence grows?
Identifying Topics That Keep Returning Without Closure
- What exactly keeps reopening in these discussions?
- Was the underlying choice ever made explicit?
- Is the topic returning because the decision is missing, ambiguous, or no longer accepted?
- Which alternatives remain implicitly open?
- What changed since the last discussion, if anything?
- Are people revisiting the decision or merely experiencing its accepted downside?
- What would need to become explicit for this topic to stop reopening unintentionally?
Distinguishing Approval of Material From Approval of a Decision
- What exactly was approved: the material or the commitments inside it?
- Which decisions are embedded in the document, presentation, or plan?
- Did the approver explicitly accept those decisions?
- Could someone reasonably approve the material without accepting every embedded choice?
- Which commitments would people assume were approved if no distinction is made?
- What consequences could follow from treating document approval as decision approval?
- Which decisions need separate confirmation?
Clarifying Internal Choices Before Making External Commitments
- Which internal decisions does this external commitment depend on?
- Which of those choices are already explicit?
- What is still being assumed or left open internally?
- Who owns each commitment that the organization is about to rely on?
- Which rejected alternatives must actually be closed before committing externally?
- What downside is the organization accepting by making this commitment now?
- What needs to be settled before the external commitment is made?
Checking the Decision Basis Before Execution Begins
- What decisions does execution already depend on?
- Which of those decisions are explicit and which are only implied?
- Are the owners and authorities clear enough for the commitments being made?
- Which unresolved choices could force rework later?
- Are any teams starting from different interpretations?
- What would become expensive to change once execution begins?
- Is the decision basis stable enough to start, or is something fundamental still missing?
Distinguishing Decisions From Intent, Assumption, Preference, and Open Questions
Separating Intent From Commitment
- Which statements describe what people hope or intend to do?
- Which statements actually commit the organization to doing something?
- What would have to change in the wording for the intent to become a decision?
- Is anyone already acting as though the intention were binding?
- Which alternatives remain open despite the stated intent?
- What risk arises from treating intention as commitment?
- What should remain labeled as intent until an explicit decision exists?
Identifying Assumptions Embedded in Apparent Decisions
- What in this apparent decision is actually assumed rather than chosen?
- Which parts depend on facts or conditions that have not been confirmed?
- Would the decision still stand if those assumptions proved false?
- Are people treating an assumption as though it were part of the commitment?
- Which assumptions need confirmation before the decision can be relied on?
- Which assumptions should remain separate from the decision statement?
- What would the decision look like once assumptions and commitments are separated?
Distinguishing Preferences From Decisions
- Which statements express what someone prefers?
- Which statements actually bind future action?
- Has the preferred option been formally or explicitly selected?
- Are other options still genuinely available?
- Who has authority to turn the preference into a commitment?
- What could happen if others interpret the preference as already decided?
- What wording would make the current status unmistakable?
Clarifying Which Questions Are Still Open
- Which parts of this topic are still unresolved?
- Which questions must be answered before a commitment can be made?
- Which questions can remain open without undermining the decision?
- Are people treating any unresolved question as though it were already settled?
- What work currently depends on an answer that does not yet exist?
- Which open questions are actually separate decisions?
- How should the open questions be recorded so they are not mistaken for commitments?
Separating Recommendations From Commitments
- What is being recommended here?
- Has anyone with authority actually accepted the recommendation?
- Which parts of the recommendation remain optional?
- Are people already executing as though the recommendation were a decision?
- What alternatives remain open?
- What would need to be explicit for this recommendation to become a commitment?
- How should the material distinguish the recommendation from the actual decision status?
Distinguishing Direction of Travel From a Decision
- What broad direction has been agreed?
- Which concrete choices are still unresolved within that direction?
- What could different teams reasonably do while all claiming to follow the same direction?
- Which future actions already require more specificity?
- Are people mistaking strategic orientation for an operational commitment?
- What would become inconsistent if no concrete choice is made?
- Which decision now needs to be stated beneath the broader direction?
Testing Whether a Proposal Has Actually Been Approved
- What evidence shows that this proposal was actually approved?
- Who had authority to approve it?
- Was approval explicit or merely inferred from discussion or silence?
- Were any conditions attached to the approval?
- Which parts of the proposal may still be open?
- Are people already treating the full proposal as binding?
- What confirmation is needed before relying on it as a decision?
Clarifying What Agreement in Principle Does and Does Not Decide
- What has actually been agreed in principle?
- Which concrete choices remain unresolved?
- What parts of the agreement are already safe to rely on?
- What could different parties interpret differently?
- Which dependencies cannot proceed on agreement in principle alone?
- What would be premature to treat as decided?
- What explicit decisions are still required before commitment increases?
Separating Document Approval From Decision Approval
- Which parts of this document contain actual choices?
- Was the document approved for quality, completeness, circulation, or commitment?
- Which embedded decisions were explicitly accepted?
- Could the approval reasonably have meant something narrower?
- What decisions are people now relying on because the document was approved?
- Which of those commitments need separate confirmation?
- How should the approval record distinguish document acceptance from decision acceptance?
Determining Whether a Discussion Produced a Real Decision
- What concrete choice emerged from the discussion?
- Was one option actually selected over another?
- Did anyone with authority own that choice?
- What remained unresolved when the discussion ended?
- Are later actions relying on a decision that was never stated?
- Could participants honestly disagree about what was decided?
- Should the outcome be recorded as a decision, an open question, or something else?
Distinguishing Decisions From Situation, Assessment, and Consequence
Separating Observable Conditions From Decisions
- Which statements describe what is currently true?
- Which statements describe an actual choice?
- Are any observations being written as though they were commitments?
- What evidence supports the observable conditions?
- What choice, if any, follows from those conditions?
- Could several different decisions respond to the same situation?
- How should the situation be stated separately from the decision?
Distinguishing Problem Statements From Choices
- What problem is being described?
- What actual choice has been made in response?
- Is the problem statement being mistaken for a decision?
- Could different responses address the same problem?
- What part of the material commits to one response?
- Is there still an unresolved choice behind the problem statement?
- How should the problem and the decision be separated?
Separating Causal Analysis From Commitment
- What does the material say is causing the situation?
- What part of the material actually commits to action?
- Is an explanation of causes being treated as though it selects a response?
- Could the same causal analysis support several different decisions?
- What choice remains after the explanation is complete?
- Are people already acting on an unstated response?
- How should the causal analysis and the commitment be recorded separately?
Distinguishing Constraints From Decisions
- What constraints are present?
- Which constraints are facts or externally imposed conditions?
- What choice is being made within those constraints?
- Is a constraint being presented as though it were itself the decision?
- What alternatives still exist despite the constraint?
- Which commitment would still need to be made even if the constraint is fixed?
- How should the decision be stated without confusing it with the constraint?
Separating Risk Assessment From Choice
- What risks have been identified?
- What decision, if any, has been made in response to those risks?
- Is the risk assessment being treated as though it determines the response automatically?
- What different choices could be consistent with the same risk assessment?
- Which risk is actually being accepted through the chosen option?
- What remains undecided after the risks are understood?
- How should the assessment and the commitment be separated?
Distinguishing Option Comparison From Selection
- Which options are being compared?
- Has one option actually been selected?
- What evidence shows that comparison ended in commitment?
- Are rankings or preferences being mistaken for a decision?
- Which alternatives remain genuinely open?
- What downstream work is already assuming a selection?
- What would need to be stated explicitly for the comparison to become a decision?
Separating Consequences of Inaction From Chosen Action
- What happens if no decision is made?
- Which of those consequences are observations rather than choices?
- Has a specific response actually been selected?
- Are people treating urgency as though it already determines the action?
- What alternatives remain available despite the consequence of inaction?
- What commitment is still required?
- How should the consequence and the chosen response be stated separately?
Identifying Analytical Conclusions Presented as Commitments
- Which statements are analytical conclusions?
- Which statements actually commit the organization to a course of action?
- Does the analysis imply a response without explicitly choosing it?
- Could someone accept the analysis while rejecting the implied action?
- What work is already relying on the implied commitment?
- Which choice still needs confirmation?
- How should the material distinguish analytical conclusion from decision?
Clarifying Whether a Consequence Has Been Mistaken for a Response
- What consequence is being described?
- What actual response has been chosen?
- Is the material moving directly from consequence to action without an explicit decision?
- Could different responses address the same consequence?
- Which response are people currently assuming?
- What evidence supports that assumption?
- What choice needs to be made explicit?
Reclassifying Statements That Mix Situation, Assessment, Consequence, and Choice
- Which parts of this statement describe the situation?
- Which parts are interpretation or assessment?
- Which parts describe consequences?
- Which parts contain an actual commitment?
- What becomes clearer when these elements are separated?
- Is any supposed decision actually just analysis or consequence?
- How should the material be rewritten so each element has a clear role?
Identifying Implicit Decisions in Meetings, Documents, and Work
Tracing Agreed Next Steps Back to the Decisions They Imply
- What choices must already be true for these next steps to make sense?
- Which of those choices were actually stated?
- Which commitments are only visible through the planned actions?
- Could the same next steps follow from more than one decision?
- Who appears to own the implied choices?
- What would need to be confirmed before treating them as decisions?
- Which candidate decisions should be made explicit?
- What commitments are implied by the meeting conclusions?
- Which conclusions are only summaries rather than decisions?
- What alternatives appear to have been closed?
- What actions would be impossible unless a choice had already been made?
- Which implied decisions are strongly supported by the discussion?
- Which are too uncertain to reconstruct confidently?
- What candidate decisions should be presented for confirmation?
Identifying Decisions Embedded in Plans and Roadmaps
- What choices does this plan or roadmap already assume?
- Which scope, sequencing, ownership, or resource decisions are embedded in it?
- Which of those choices have explicit decision records?
- What alternatives does the plan implicitly exclude?
- Which decisions are necessary for the plan to remain coherent?
- Which commitments might be accidental consequences of planning detail?
- What should be surfaced as candidate decisions?
Identifying Commitments Embedded in Draft Contracts or Terms
- What organizational commitments are already encoded in these draft terms?
- Which choices would become binding if the draft were accepted?
- Which internal decisions support those commitments?
- Are any internal choices still unresolved?
- What downside would the organization accept through these terms?
- Which alternatives would effectively be closed?
- What decisions need explicit confirmation before the draft is relied on?
Inferring Decisions From Budget and Resource Commitments
- What choices are implied by where money or resources have been allocated?
- Which alternatives become harder or impossible because of those commitments?
- Was the underlying decision ever stated explicitly?
- Could the allocation have another plausible explanation?
- Who appears to own the implied commitment?
- What downside or opportunity cost is being accepted?
- What decision should be confirmed before further resources are committed?
Clarifying Choices Implied by Scope Boundaries
- What choices are implied by what is included in scope?
- What choices are implied by what is excluded?
- Were those boundaries explicitly decided?
- Which excluded alternatives are effectively being rejected?
- What downstream work depends on these boundaries remaining stable?
- Where could different interpretations of scope create different commitments?
- What scope decisions should be stated explicitly?
Tracing Ownership Assignments Back to Unstated Commitments
- What decisions are implied by assigning this work to this owner?
- Does the assignment assume a scope, authority, or responsibility choice?
- Was that underlying choice explicitly made?
- Could the same ownership assignment support several interpretations?
- What commitment is the owner now expected to carry?
- What authority does that commitment require?
- Which underlying decision needs explicit confirmation?
Identifying Decisions Revealed by Work Already Underway
- What choices are visible in the work that has already started?
- Which actions would make no sense unless a decision had been assumed?
- Was that decision ever explicitly made?
- Are different teams acting on different assumed decisions?
- What alternatives have already become harder to pursue?
- What downside has effectively been accepted through the work?
- What candidate decision should now be surfaced for confirmation or correction?
Inferring Choices From Explicitly Ruled-Out Options
- Which options have been explicitly ruled out?
- What remaining choice does that exclusion imply?
- Does ruling out one option actually determine the selected path?
- Are several alternatives still open?
- Who ruled out the option and with what authority?
- What commitment are people now inferring from that exclusion?
- What decision still needs to be stated explicitly?
Separating Multiple Implicit Decisions Within One Passage or Discussion
- How many distinct commitments are hidden in this material?
- Which statements imply separate choices?
- Do those choices have different owners, tradeoffs, or consequences?
- Which decisions can be accepted or rejected independently?
- Are any commitments being bundled because they appeared in the same discussion?
- What relationships between the decisions still need to be preserved?
- How should the candidate decisions be separated for review?
Reconstructing Candidate Decisions From Messy Material
Reconstructing Decisions From Fragmented Meeting Notes
- What commitments are implied across these fragmented notes?
- Which fragments refer to the same underlying choice?
- What evidence supports each candidate decision?
- Which parts remain too ambiguous to reconstruct confidently?
- What alternatives appear to have been rejected?
- What downside or limitation is visible in the material?
- Which candidate decisions should be presented for human confirmation?
Reconstructing Candidate Decisions From Conflicting Notes
- Where do these notes agree about the underlying commitment?
- Where do they contradict each other?
- What different candidate decisions could explain the conflicting records?
- Which reconstruction has the strongest support in the material?
- What cannot be resolved from the notes alone?
- Which elements require direct human confirmation?
- Should the result be one candidate decision, several alternatives, or no reliable reconstruction?
Reconstructing Decisions From Slide Decks
- What decisions are implied by the structure and content of this deck?
- Which slides contain choices rather than analysis or recommendation?
- What scope, ownership, or tradeoffs are being assumed?
- Which alternatives appear to have been rejected?
- What decisions are necessary for the proposed plan to make sense?
- Which apparent commitments may only be presentation language?
- What candidate decisions should be extracted for confirmation?
Reconstructing Decisions From Email or Message Threads
- What commitments emerge across this thread?
- Which messages contain actual choices and which contain suggestions or reactions?
- Where did the discussion move from exploration to commitment?
- What alternatives were explicitly or implicitly closed?
- Are later messages acting as though an earlier choice were final?
- What contradictions or unresolved points remain?
- What candidate decisions can be reconstructed without inventing content?
- What choices are implied by the combination of actions and commentary?
- Where do actions support or contradict what people said?
- Which source should be treated as evidence of commitment rather than mere intent?
- What candidate decisions explain the behavior most plausibly?
- What elements remain uncertain or inferred?
- Are any actions occurring without legitimate decision ownership?
- What should be presented for confirmation rather than stated as fact?
Reconstructing a Decision Across Several Documents
- Which parts of the decision are distributed across these documents?
- What common commitment appears across them?
- Where do the documents differ in scope, wording, or tradeoff?
- Which document appears to contain the strongest evidence of the actual choice?
- Are any elements only inferred by combining separate sources?
- What contradictions need human resolution?
- What single candidate decision can be reconstructed without overstating certainty?
Working With Incomplete Material When Reconstructing Decisions
- What can be supported confidently from the material that exists?
- Which elements of the decision are missing?
- What would have to be inferred to produce a complete decision statement?
- Which inferences are reasonable enough to flag as candidates?
- What should remain explicitly unknown?
- Could several different decisions fit the same incomplete evidence?
- What questions need human confirmation before the reconstruction can be relied on?
Reconstructing Choices That Were Narrowed but Never Stated
- Which options were eliminated during the discussion?
- What possibilities remained at the end?
- Did the narrowing process actually produce a final choice?
- What later actions suggest that one remaining option was assumed?
- Could more than one plausible decision still fit the material?
- What commitment would need confirmation before calling the choice decided?
- What candidate wording best reflects the evidence without overstating closure?
Separating Several Candidate Decisions Hidden Inside One Topic
- What distinct choices are contained within this topic?
- Which choices have different owners or tradeoffs?
- Which can be decided independently?
- Are any candidate decisions merely consequences of another choice?
- What dependencies connect the separate decisions?
- Which decisions are supported strongly enough to reconstruct?
- How should they be separated so each can be confirmed or rejected independently?
Reconstructing Decisions From Actions Already Being Taken
- What decision would have to exist for these actions to be legitimate and coherent?
- Is there evidence that such a decision was actually made?
- What alternative explanations could account for the actions?
- Which commitments have effectively been created through execution?
- What owners and downsides are implied?
- What remains uncertain despite the actions?
- What candidate decision should be surfaced for explicit confirmation or correction?
Testing Whether a Reconstructed Decision Is Supported by the Material
Checking Whether the Chosen Path Is Supported by the Material
- What evidence in the material supports this chosen path?
- Which statements directly indicate the choice?
- Which parts of the reconstruction rely only on implication?
- Is there evidence for a different plausible path?
- Does later material contradict the reconstructed choice?
- How confident can we be that this path was actually selected?
- Should the choice be confirmed, revised, or left unresolved?
Checking Whether the Stated Benefit Is Supported by the Material
- Where does the material support this stated benefit?
- Is the benefit explicitly stated or reconstructed from context?
- Does the material describe a concrete operational effect or only a broad aspiration?
- Could a different benefit fit the same evidence?
- Is the benefit being added because it sounds plausible rather than because it is supported?
- What uncertainty should be flagged?
- Should the benefit remain, be revised, or require human confirmation?
Verifying Whether the Rejected Alternative Appears in the Material
- What evidence shows that this alternative was considered or available?
- Was it explicitly rejected or merely absent?
- Could another alternative be the more relevant comparison?
- Does the material show that this option was genuinely closed?
- Are we inferring rejection only because another option was pursued?
- What uncertainty remains about the alternative?
- Should the rejected alternative be confirmed, revised, or left unstated?
Distinguishing Supported Downsides From Explicitly Inferred Downsides
- Which downsides are directly supported by the material?
- Which downsides are analytical inferences rather than source statements?
- What evidence makes the inferred downside plausible?
- Could another downside be equally plausible?
- Is the inferred downside a consequence of the chosen option specifically?
- What needs human confirmation before it is treated as accepted?
- How should supported and inferred downsides be labeled separately?
Separating Reconstruction From Invention
- Which parts of this candidate decision come directly from the material?
- Which parts are reasonable inference?
- Which parts have no clear support?
- Are we filling gaps because the decision format expects an answer?
- Could the unsupported parts materially change the commitment?
- What should be removed or marked for confirmation?
- Does enough evidence remain to support a candidate decision at all?
Assessing Candidate Decisions Supported Only Indirectly
- What indirect evidence supports this candidate decision?
- How many independent signals point to the same commitment?
- Could those signals have another plausible explanation?
- What important elements are still missing?
- Is anyone already acting as though the decision exists?
- What would make the reconstruction more reliable?
- Should this be presented as a tentative candidate rather than an established decision?
Assessing Contradictory Evidence Behind a Candidate Decision
- Which pieces of evidence support the candidate decision?
- Which pieces contradict it?
- Are the contradictions about the choice itself or only about details?
- Could the material reflect a decision that changed over time?
- Could different stakeholders have been operating under different assumptions?
- What cannot be concluded reliably from the available evidence?
- What needs human clarification before the candidate is accepted?
Comparing Several Plausible Reconstructions
- What are the plausible candidate decisions supported by this material?
- Which evidence supports each reconstruction?
- Where do the reconstructions differ materially?
- Which reconstruction requires the fewest unsupported assumptions?
- Could the ambiguity itself indicate that no stable decision existed?
- What human confirmation would distinguish the candidates?
- How should the alternatives be presented without pretending one is certain?
Recognizing When the Material Does Not Support a Reliable Decision
- What decision are we trying to reconstruct?
- What evidence is actually available?
- Which essential elements are unsupported?
- Are we relying more on typical practice than on this material?
- Could several incompatible commitments fit the evidence?
- What would be invented if we forced a complete decision statement?
- Should the correct conclusion simply be that no reliable decision can be reconstructed?
Flagging Inferred Elements for Human Confirmation
- Which elements of this candidate decision are inferred?
- Why was each inference made?
- How material is each inference to the commitment?
- What could change if the inference is wrong?
- Who is best placed to confirm or reject it?
- Which inferred elements can remain provisional?
- How should the decision be presented so inference is unmistakable?
Making Decisions Explicit, Concrete, and Actionable
Turning Vague Direction Into Concrete Commitment
- What concrete choice is hidden inside this vague direction?
- What will actually happen if the direction becomes a commitment?
- What remains open despite the stated direction?
- Which actor or organizational scope is responsible?
- What alternative is being rejected?
- What downside is accepted by choosing this path?
- How can the commitment be stated so downstream work can rely on it?
Replacing Aspirational Language With Commitment Language
- Which words describe ambition rather than commitment?
- What specific action or choice sits behind the aspiration?
- What would someone reasonably expect to happen because of this statement?
- What remains optional in the current wording?
- Which alternative is still implicitly open?
- What concrete downside would the real commitment carry?
- How can the statement be rewritten as an actual decision?
Clarifying What Will Actually Happen
- What action or state does this decision actually commit to?
- Who will do what differently because of it?
- When does the commitment become operationally relevant?
- What interpretations are still possible in the current wording?
- Which alternative action is being excluded?
- What practical consequence follows from the choice?
- What wording would make the expected outcome unambiguous?
Naming the Relevant Actor or Organizational Scope
- Who is actually bound by this decision?
- Does the commitment apply to one person, team, function, project, or the whole organization?
- Is the current actor implied rather than stated?
- Could different groups reasonably believe the decision applies differently?
- Who has authority over the stated scope?
- What downstream work depends on knowing the scope precisely?
- How should the decision identify the relevant actor or boundary?
Defining the Scope of the Commitment
- What exactly is inside this commitment?
- What is outside it?
- Which products, teams, geographies, phases, or activities are affected?
- Where could the current wording be interpreted too broadly or too narrowly?
- What parts of the scope are still undecided?
- Which dependencies rely on the scope remaining stable?
- What boundary needs to be explicit in the decision?
Clarifying What the Decision Does Not Commit To
- What might readers wrongly assume this decision also commits to?
- Which adjacent choices remain open?
- What future decisions are not being made yet?
- Are any implementation details being mistaken for part of the commitment?
- Could the current wording unintentionally close options that should remain open?
- What exclusions matter for downstream interpretation?
- How should the non-commitments be made clear without weakening the actual decision?
Removing Wording That Allows Conflicting Interpretations
- Which words or phrases can be interpreted in more than one way?
- What different actions could teams take while still claiming to follow this wording?
- Which interpretation is actually intended?
- What assumptions are readers currently required to make?
- Where does ambiguity affect scope, ownership, timing, or tradeoff?
- What would become unstable if the wording stayed unchanged?
- How can the decision be rewritten so the commitment has one operational meaning?
Translating Verbal Agreement Into a Written Decision
- What exactly was agreed verbally?
- Which parts were clearly committed and which remained exploratory?
- What alternative was rejected?
- What downside was knowingly accepted?
- Who owns the commitment?
- What could be lost or distorted when converting the discussion into writing?
- What written decision best captures the actual verbal agreement?
Comparing Written Decisions With Verbal Agreement
- What does the written decision say?
- What did participants believe they agreed verbally?
- Where do the two differ?
- Is the difference about wording, scope, ownership, alternative, or downside?
- Which version are people currently acting on?
- What evidence supports the intended commitment?
- What needs correction or explicit confirmation before the written record is relied on?
Making Decisions Precise Enough for Downstream Work
- What downstream work will rely on this decision?
- What does that work need to know unambiguously?
- Which parts of the current decision still require interpretation?
- What assumptions would downstream teams have to make?
- Could two competent teams execute differently from the same wording?
- Which missing details are actual decision elements rather than implementation details?
- What needs to be sharpened before others rely on the commitment?
Making Decisions Atomic
Identifying Multiple Decisions Hidden in One Sentence
- How many distinct choices are contained in this sentence?
- Which clauses could be accepted or rejected independently?
- Do different parts have different owners?
- Do they carry different alternatives or downsides?
- Would changing one part leave the others intact?
- Which dependencies between the choices are real?
- How should the sentence be split into atomic decisions?
Splitting Bundled Choices Into Separate Decisions
- Which choices have been bundled together?
- Why were they combined in the first place?
- Which choices can stand independently?
- Do any choices require different owners or authorities?
- What tradeoff belongs to each separate decision?
- What relationships must remain visible after splitting?
- What set of atomic decisions best preserves the actual commitments?
Separating Decisions With Different Owners
- Which parts of this statement belong to different decision owners?
- Who has authority over each choice?
- Are several people being made jointly responsible because the decisions are bundled?
- Could each owner accept or reject their part independently?
- What dependencies connect the separate decisions?
- Would splitting clarify accountability without changing substance?
- How should the commitments be separated by owner?
Separating Decisions With Different Tradeoffs
- Which choices in this statement carry different benefits and downsides?
- Is one tradeoff being used to justify several separate commitments?
- Could one choice remain valid if another were reversed?
- Which alternative belongs to each choice?
- What downside belongs specifically to each decision?
- Where does bundling hide the real cost of one choice?
- How should the decisions be separated so each tradeoff is inspectable?
Separating Decisions That May Need to Change Independently
- Which parts of this commitment might change at different times?
- Could one part be reversed without changing the others?
- What would happen if the whole bundle had to be reopened whenever one element changed?
- Which parts have different assumptions or dependencies?
- Which choices have different owners?
- What relationships still need to be preserved?
- How should the bundle be split to allow explicit independent change?
Unpacking Conditions That Hide Additional Choices
- What decisions are hidden inside the conditions attached to this statement?
- Is a condition actually another commitment?
- Who owns the choice embedded in the condition?
- What happens if the condition is not met?
- Does the main decision still stand independently?
- Are any future choices being disguised as implementation detail?
- Which conditional elements should become separate decisions?
Separating a Core Decision From Its Exceptions
- What is the core commitment?
- Which exceptions are being bundled into the same statement?
- Are the exceptions themselves decisions?
- Do they have different owners or tradeoffs?
- Could exceptions change without changing the core decision?
- Does embedding them make the main commitment harder to understand?
- How should the core decision and exceptions be separated?
Testing Whether a Compound Statement Can Be Accepted or Rejected as One
- Could someone reasonably agree with one part and reject another?
- Do all parts share the same owner?
- Do they share the same benefit, alternative, and downside?
- Would changing one part require reopening everything?
- Does the statement contain several operational commitments?
- What ambiguity is created by treating them as one decision?
- Should the statement remain whole or be split?
Checking Whether One Part of a Decision Can Stand Independently
- Which part of the decision are we testing?
- Does it still make sense if the other parts are removed?
- Does it have its own owner and tradeoff?
- Is it logically dependent on another commitment?
- Would it be changed or reversed independently in practice?
- What information would be lost by separating it?
- Should it become its own atomic decision?
Preserving Necessary Relationships After Splitting Decisions
- Which relationships between the split decisions are essential?
- Does one decision depend on another?
- Must they happen in a particular order?
- Does changing one invalidate another?
- Which shared assumptions need to remain visible?
- How can the relationships be recorded without rebundling the decisions?
- What decision set best preserves both atomicity and coherence?
Clarifying the Concrete Benefit of the Choice
Identifying the Operational Benefit Created by a Choice
- What concrete operational effect does this choice create?
- What becomes easier, faster, safer, clearer, cheaper, or more reliable?
- Who experiences that benefit?
- Is the benefit a direct result of the chosen option?
- Would the rejected alternative create the same benefit?
- Is the benefit specific enough to explain the commitment?
- How should the benefit be stated in the decision?
Separating Concrete Benefits From General Aspirations
- Which claimed benefits are broad aspirations?
- What concrete operational effect sits underneath them?
- Could the aspiration remain true under several different options?
- What changes specifically because this option was chosen?
- Which benefit can actually be observed in practice?
- What wording is too abstract to distinguish the choice?
- What concrete benefit should replace the aspiration?
Connecting the Benefit to the Situation Being Addressed
- What situation is this decision responding to?
- What concrete problem or constraint does the chosen option improve?
- How does the stated benefit address that situation?
- Is the benefit relevant to the actual reason the commitment matters?
- Could the same benefit be claimed regardless of the situation?
- What would remain unresolved even if the benefit were achieved?
- How should the benefit be stated so the connection is clear?
Separating Concrete Benefit From Broader Decision Rationale
- What is the concrete benefit of the chosen option?
- What additional reasoning belongs outside the decision statement?
- Which arguments explain the broader context rather than the operational effect?
- Is the benefit being overloaded with justification?
- Could the decision remain understandable without the surrounding rationale?
- What explanatory material should stay separate?
- What concise benefit belongs in the decision itself?
Selecting the Primary Benefit Among Several Benefits
- What benefits does this choice create?
- Which benefit most directly explains the operational value of the choice?
- Which benefits are secondary effects?
- Which benefits are uncertain or speculative?
- Would the decision still make sense if some secondary benefits did not materialize?
- Which benefit best distinguishes the chosen option from the alternative?
- What single primary benefit should the decision emphasize?
- What benefit appears immediately after the decision is implemented?
- What effects may emerge only later?
- Which longer-term effects are uncertain?
- Is the decision relying on a distant benefit while ignoring the immediate operational effect?
- Which benefit actually explains why the choice matters now?
- What future effects should remain outside the core decision wording?
- How should the immediate concrete benefit be stated?
Sharpening Benefits That Are Too Vague to Explain the Choice
- Which words in the benefit are too broad or abstract?
- What specific operational change is actually expected?
- Who or what will be affected?
- How would we recognize the benefit in practice?
- Does the current wording distinguish this option from alternatives?
- What important meaning is hidden behind generic terms?
- How can the benefit be rewritten more concretely?
Testing Whether the Benefit Distinguishes the Chosen Option
- Does this benefit arise specifically from the chosen option?
- Would the rejected alternative provide the same benefit?
- Is the benefit merely desirable regardless of which option is chosen?
- What operational effect actually differentiates the alternatives?
- Is the current benefit too generic to explain the choice?
- What evidence supports the distinction?
- What benefit wording better captures why this option is different?
Removing Benefit Language That Merely Restates the Decision
- Is the benefit simply repeating the chosen action in different words?
- What actual operational effect follows from the action?
- What changes because the decision is implemented?
- Could someone understand the value without already knowing the decision?
- Does the benefit explain an effect rather than the activity itself?
- What wording should be removed as circular?
- What concrete result should replace it?
Recognizing When No Concrete Operational Benefit Is Stated
- What benefit is currently stated?
- Is it concrete enough to describe an operational effect?
- Is the wording only aspiration, rationale, or repetition?
- What benefit can actually be supported from the material?
- Could the choice have been made without a clearly articulated benefit?
- What needs human clarification before adding one?
- Should the decision remain incomplete until the benefit is confirmed?
Identifying the Rejected Alternative
Identifying the Most Meaningful Rejected Alternative
- What realistic alternative was available when this choice was made?
- Which alternative best represents what the organization chose not to do?
- Was that alternative genuinely executable?
- Did decision makers actually consider it?
- What makes it more relevant than other possible alternatives?
- What changes when this alternative is made explicit?
- How should the rejected alternative be stated in the decision?
Separating Rejected Alternatives From Simple Negations of the Choice
- Is the stated alternative merely the opposite wording of the chosen option?
- What concrete action could actually have been taken instead?
- Would the alternative have required a different plan or commitment?
- Was it genuinely available at the time?
- What tradeoff did choosing against it create?
- Does naming the real alternative make the choice more inspectable?
- What executable alternative should replace the simple negation?
Writing Alternatives as Concrete Executable Options
- What would someone actually do under the alternative?
- Who would own that path?
- Is the alternative specific enough to be implemented?
- What resources or conditions would it require?
- Could it genuinely have been selected?
- What makes it meaningfully different from the chosen option?
- How should it be stated as a concrete alternative?
Selecting the Relevant Rejected Alternative Among Several Options
- What alternatives were genuinely available?
- Which one was the most credible competitor to the chosen path?
- Which alternative was actually discussed or implicitly displaced?
- Which one best exposes the tradeoff in the decision?
- Are some alternatives too remote or unrealistic to be useful?
- What evidence supports choosing one as the primary rejected alternative?
- Which alternative should the decision record?
Checking Whether an Alternative Has Actually Been Closed
- Is this alternative genuinely no longer available?
- What evidence shows that it was rejected?
- Are people still preserving it through side agreements or parallel work?
- Could teams still pursue it without formally reversing the decision?
- What ambiguity remains about whether it is closed?
- What execution behavior would reveal that it remains open?
- What needs to be clarified to make the rejection explicit?
Identifying Side Agreements That Keep Rejected Alternatives Alive
- What side agreements exist around this decision?
- Do any of them preserve parts of the rejected path?
- Who made those agreements?
- Do they contradict the explicit decision?
- Are they implementation details or hidden decision changes?
- What confusion can result from keeping both paths alive?
- Which commitment needs clarification or explicit revision?
Distinguishing Alternative Actions From Unwanted Outcomes
- Is the stated alternative something people could actually choose to do?
- Or is it merely an outcome they want to avoid?
- What concrete action would produce the alternative path?
- Who could have selected it?
- Was that path genuinely available?
- What tradeoff becomes visible once the alternative is written as an action?
- How should the alternative be restated?
Testing Whether a Rejected Alternative Was Genuinely Available
- Could this alternative actually have been chosen at the time?
- Did the organization have the authority, resources, and capability to pursue it?
- Was it ruled out before the decision for reasons unrelated to the choice?
- Is it being used as a fictional contrast to make the chosen option look stronger?
- What evidence shows it was a credible option?
- Is another alternative more realistic?
- Should the decision retain, replace, or omit this alternative?
Surfacing Meaningful Alternatives Left Implicit
- What realistic alternatives are missing from the current decision record?
- Which paths were discussed but never named explicitly?
- Which path would people most likely have pursued otherwise?
- Does leaving the alternative implicit make the tradeoff harder to inspect?
- What evidence supports the alternative?
- Would naming it change how the decision is understood?
- Which alternative should be surfaced for confirmation?
Clarifying Decisions That Avoid Choosing Between Competing Paths
- What competing paths remain open?
- Is the current decision wording actually choosing between them?
- Could different teams pursue different paths while claiming compliance?
- What ambiguity allows both options to survive?
- Which downstream commitments require one path to be selected?
- What would remain undecided if the wording stayed unchanged?
- What explicit choice is still required?
Identifying the Accepted Downside
Identifying the Concrete Cost Created by a Choice
- What concrete cost or limitation comes with this option?
- Who bears that cost?
- Is it a direct consequence of the chosen path?
- Would the rejected alternative avoid or reduce it?
- Is the cost significant enough to influence later behavior?
- Could it cause the decision to be reopened under pressure?
- How should the accepted downside be stated?
Separating Accepted Downsides From General Risks
- Which negative outcomes are general risks?
- Which downside is inherent in choosing this option?
- Is the downside expected enough to be consciously accepted?
- Could the same risk occur under any alternative?
- What cost specifically differentiates this choice?
- Which uncertainty belongs in risk management rather than the decision?
- What downside belongs in the decision statement?
- What negative outcome is being linked to this decision?
- Does it actually result from the chosen option?
- Would it occur regardless of the decision?
- Is it caused by another dependency or external factor?
- Does including it distort the tradeoff?
- What downside is more directly connected to the choice?
- What should be removed from the decision record?
Testing Whether the Downside Actually Follows From the Choice
- How does this downside result from the chosen option?
- What causal connection is assumed?
- Is the downside supported by the material or inferred?
- Could it arise for unrelated reasons?
- Would the rejected alternative produce the same downside?
- What evidence would strengthen or weaken the connection?
- Should the downside be retained, revised, or marked for confirmation?
Checking Whether the Same Downside Exists Under the Rejected Alternative
- Would this downside also occur under the rejected alternative?
- If so, does it really describe the tradeoff created by the choice?
- What cost is unique or more pronounced under the selected option?
- Are we naming a general problem rather than an accepted downside?
- How do the alternatives differ in what must be tolerated?
- Which downside best exposes that difference?
- What should the decision record instead?
Selecting the Primary Downside Among Several Costs
- What costs or limitations come with this choice?
- Which one is most material to the commitment?
- Which one is most likely to create future pressure to reopen the decision?
- Which costs are secondary or implementation-specific?
- Which downside best distinguishes this option from the alternative?
- What cost are decision makers genuinely willing to accept?
- Which primary downside should the decision state?
Surfacing Downsides Hidden Inside Assumptions
- What assumptions make this decision appear less costly than it really is?
- What happens if those assumptions are removed?
- Which burden is currently being treated as someone else's problem?
- What limitation is being hidden by optimistic wording?
- Who will actually experience the cost?
- Would decision makers still accept the choice if the downside were explicit?
- What downside needs to be surfaced for confirmation?
Replacing Abstract Downside Language With Concrete Consequences
- Which words make the downside sound abstract or harmless?
- What actually happens in operational terms?
- Who loses time, flexibility, money, capacity, or control?
- What constraint will people experience in practice?
- Could the abstract wording allow later denial of the tradeoff?
- What level of specificity is needed to make acceptance meaningful?
- How should the downside be rewritten concretely?
Testing Whether Anyone Is Willing to Accept the Stated Downside
- Who is expected to accept this downside?
- Have they actually acknowledged it?
- Does the decision owner accept the tradeoff?
- Are people endorsing the benefit while resisting the cost?
- What behavior suggests the downside is not truly accepted?
- Would the decision survive if the downside materialized immediately?
- Does the decision need confirmation, correction, or reconsideration?
Revising Decisions When the Real Downside Differs From the Stated One
- What downside was originally accepted?
- What downside is now understood to be real?
- How materially do they differ?
- Was the original downside incomplete, mistaken, or merely too vague?
- Would the decision owner still accept the actual tradeoff?
- Does this require clarification or a new decision?
- What needs to change in the decision record?
Clarifying Decision Ownership and Authority
Identifying the Person Who Owns a Decision
- Who is actually responsible for making this commitment?
- Who can legitimately say yes or no to the choice?
- Is one person clearly accountable for the decision?
- Are several participants being mistaken for joint owners?
- Who will answer for the decision if it is challenged later?
- Does the current record name that person?
- What ownership needs to be made explicit?
Separating Decision Ownership From Participation and Advice
- Who participated in shaping this decision?
- Who advised or recommended?
- Who actually owns the final commitment?
- Are influential participants being mistaken for decision owners?
- Can contributors disagree while still recognizing one owner?
- What authority distinguishes the owner from the participants?
- How should those roles be recorded separately?
Separating Decision Ownership From Execution Ownership
- Who owns the decision itself?
- Who owns implementing it?
- Are those the same person or different people?
- Is execution responsibility being mistaken for authority to change the decision?
- Who can reverse or replace the commitment?
- What problems arise if the distinction remains unclear?
- How should decision and execution ownership be stated separately?
Checking Whether the Named Owner Has Authority to Commit
- What authority does the named owner actually have?
- Does that authority cover the scope of this decision?
- Are approvals or mandates still required elsewhere?
- Could the owner commit others who are affected?
- Is responsibility being assigned beyond formal authority?
- What happens if the decision is challenged?
- Is the named owner legitimate, or does ownership need correction?
Identifying Shared Ownership That Leaves No Single Decision Owner
- How is ownership currently shared?
- Who can make the final commitment if the owners disagree?
- Is anyone individually accountable for the decision?
- Does shared ownership hide several separate decisions?
- Could the decision be split by scope or authority?
- What ambiguity will persist if ownership remains collective?
- What needs to be clarified before the decision can be relied on?
Identifying Responsibility Without Sufficient Authority
- Who is being held responsible for this decision?
- What authority do they actually possess?
- Which parts of the commitment require approval elsewhere?
- Could they deliver the expected outcome without being able to make the necessary choices?
- Where does responsibility exceed decision rights?
- What risk does this create for later accountability?
- What ownership or authority needs correction?
Identifying Authority Without Clear Responsibility
- Who has authority to make the decision?
- Is anyone explicitly responsible for exercising that authority?
- Could the decision remain unresolved because authority is not paired with ownership?
- Who will be accountable for the outcome?
- Are several authorities able to defer to each other?
- What work is waiting on the unresolved commitment?
- What explicit ownership is needed?
Clarifying Decision Ownership in Cross-Functional Work
- Which function or person owns the cross-functional decision?
- Which teams contribute without owning the final choice?
- Does the owner have authority across the affected scope?
- Are separate functional decisions being bundled into one?
- Where could competing mandates create ambiguity?
- What happens if participating teams disagree?
- What ownership structure needs to be explicit in the decision record?
Determining Whether a Multi-Owner Decision Contains Several Decisions
- Why does this decision appear to need several owners?
- Are there actually several distinct commitments inside it?
- Which parts belong to different authorities?
- Can the choices be accepted or changed independently?
- Do they carry different tradeoffs or scopes?
- What dependencies connect them?
- Should the multi-owner statement be split into separate decisions?
Recognizing When No Legitimate Decision Owner Exists
- Who currently appears to own the decision?
- What authority would a legitimate owner need?
- Why does no current person or role meet that requirement?
- Is the decision spanning several authority boundaries?
- Is the work proceeding despite the ownership gap?
- What commitments are unsafe to rely on without an owner?
- What must be resolved before this can become a valid decision?
Surfacing Hidden Assumptions and Undecided Dependencies
Identifying Assumptions a Decision Depends On
- What must be true for this decision to work as intended?
- Which of those conditions are assumptions rather than confirmed facts?
- Which assumptions are essential to the commitment?
- What happens if one proves false?
- Are any assumptions being treated as decisions?
- Which assumptions need explicit confirmation or monitoring?
- What should be recorded separately from the decision?
Making Hidden Prerequisites Explicit
- What must happen before this decision can be implemented?
- Which prerequisites are currently unstated?
- Are any prerequisites themselves unresolved decisions?
- Who owns each prerequisite?
- What happens if one is not met?
- Is the decision being treated as unconditional when it is not?
- Which prerequisites need to be made explicit?
Tracing Decisions That Depend on Other Unresolved Decisions
- Which other decisions does this commitment depend on?
- Are those upstream decisions actually resolved?
- What part of this decision becomes unstable if they remain open?
- Are teams proceeding as though the dependencies were already settled?
- Who owns the unresolved decisions?
- What sequence of commitments is required?
- Should this decision remain provisional until the dependencies are resolved?
Clarifying Commitments That Depend on Future Explanation
- What part of this decision is expected to be clarified later?
- Is that future explanation merely detail, or is it carrying an unresolved choice?
- Could different later explanations produce different commitments?
- What are people currently assuming until clarification arrives?
- Which work is already relying on those assumptions?
- What needs to be explicit now rather than deferred?
- What can legitimately remain for later explanation?
Identifying Dependencies on Future Governance or Approval
- What future approval or governance action does this decision depend on?
- Is that action guaranteed or still uncertain?
- Does the current decision exceed the authority available today?
- What happens if the future approval is denied or changed?
- Are people treating anticipated approval as already granted?
- Which commitment can safely be made now?
- What dependency needs explicit recognition in the decision record?
Checking Assumed Availability of Resources or Capability
- What resources or capabilities does this decision assume?
- Are they actually available?
- Who controls them?
- Is future availability already committed or merely expected?
- What happens if the assumption is wrong?
- Does the decision need another explicit resource commitment?
- What should be confirmed before relying on the decision?
Surfacing Assumed Behavior From Other Teams or Stakeholders
- What behavior from others does this decision depend on?
- Have those teams or stakeholders actually committed to it?
- Are expectations being treated as commitments?
- What authority or incentive would make the assumed behavior likely?
- What happens if they act differently?
- Does their behavior require a separate decision?
- What assumption needs explicit confirmation?
Clarifying Cross-Functional Dependencies That Remain Undecided
- What cross-functional dependencies does this decision create?
- Which dependencies have explicit commitments behind them?
- Which remain undecided?
- Who owns the missing commitments?
- What work cannot proceed safely until they are resolved?
- Are teams filling the gaps with local assumptions?
- Which dependency decisions need to be surfaced?
Identifying Where Interpretation Is Carrying Part of the Commitment
- Which parts of this decision require readers to interpret what was meant?
- What different interpretations are plausible?
- Which interpretation is necessary for the commitment to work?
- Is that meaning actually present in the decision record?
- What downstream behavior already depends on the interpretation?
- What could change if another interpretation is used?
- What needs to be stated explicitly instead of left to interpretation?
Identifying Where Future Follow-Up Is Standing In for a Decision
- What issue has been deferred to future follow-up?
- Is that issue actually an unresolved decision?
- What work is proceeding before the follow-up happens?
- What assumption is being used in the meantime?
- Who owns the unresolved choice?
- What becomes costly if the issue remains open?
- What decision gap should be made visible now?
Challenging Decisions Against Constraints and Reality
Checking Whether a Decision Fits Available Authority
- What authority does this decision require?
- Who currently holds that authority?
- Does the decision owner have enough authority to commit?
- Which parts exceed the available mandate?
- Are approvals being assumed rather than obtained?
- What happens if the decision is challenged on authority?
- Does the commitment need correction, narrowing, or another explicit decision?
Stress-Testing a Decision Against Budget and Resources
- What budget and resources does this decision require?
- Are those resources actually committed?
- What competing commitments draw on the same resources?
- Which assumptions about capacity are optimistic or unconfirmed?
- What part of the decision fails first under tighter resources?
- Does the accepted downside include the real resource tradeoff?
- Is the decision still coherent under the available budget and capacity?
Comparing a Decision With Operational Reality
- What would implementing this decision actually require?
- How does that compare with current processes, systems, skills, and constraints?
- Which parts of the commitment conflict with operational reality?
- Are implementation difficulties being mistaken for decision flaws?
- What assumptions need testing?
- Could the decision still stand with different execution?
- Does the commitment need correction, or is the challenge purely operational?
Checking Whether Timing Makes the Decision Viable
- What timing does this decision assume?
- Which dates or sequences are fixed?
- What dependencies must happen first?
- Is the required timing actually achievable?
- What part of the commitment changes if timing slips?
- Is timing an implementation issue or part of the decision itself?
- Does the decision need narrowing or explicit revision?
Testing a Decision Against External Obligations
- What external obligations constrain this decision?
- Does the commitment conflict with any contractual, legal, regulatory, or customer obligation?
- Which parts of the decision are affected?
- Was the external constraint known when the decision was made?
- Can the decision still stand within the constraint?
- Does resolving the conflict require a new decision?
- What limitation needs to be explicit before relying on the commitment?
Testing Critical Dependencies Behind a Decision
- Which dependencies are essential to this decision?
- Are they already committed and reliable?
- Which dependencies remain assumptions?
- What happens if one fails?
- Does the decision contain enough room for dependency failure?
- Which dependency would force the commitment to change?
- What needs confirmation before the decision can carry more commitment?
Examining Conflicts With Existing Incentives and Responsibilities
- What existing incentives work against this decision?
- Which responsibilities conflict with the new commitment?
- Who would be expected to act against their current incentives?
- Is that tension acknowledged in the decision basis?
- Could the conflict prevent the decision from being carried out as written?
- Does addressing it require a separate decision?
- What constraint needs to be surfaced before proceeding?
Testing a Decision Against Known Political Constraints
- What known political constraints affect this decision?
- Which stakeholders have enough influence to block or reshape the commitment?
- What commitments or sensitivities already exist?
- Are these constraints documented or merely assumed?
- Which part of the decision is most exposed to political pressure?
- Does the decision remain viable under those known constraints?
- What requires human judgment before the decision is treated as stable?
Testing Whether the Accepted Downside Is Actually Tolerable
- What downside does the decision explicitly accept?
- Who will experience it?
- Have the affected decision makers actually accepted that cost?
- What happens when the downside materializes?
- Is current behavior already trying to avoid the accepted tradeoff?
- Would avoiding the downside effectively reopen the decision?
- Does the commitment still stand, or does the tradeoff need explicit reconsideration?
Subjecting the Decision to Skeptical Review
- What is the strongest reasonable challenge to this decision as written?
- Which assumptions are easiest to attack?
- What ambiguity could a skeptical reader exploit?
- Which tradeoff is least credible?
- What dependency is most fragile?
- What part of the decision remains strong after challenge?
- What should be corrected, clarified, or confirmed before relying on it?
Correcting, Narrowing, or Rejecting Candidate Decisions
Correcting Candidate Decisions That Misstate the Commitment
- What part of this candidate decision misstates what was actually chosen?
- What evidence shows the mismatch?
- Is the problem in the choice, benefit, alternative, downside, scope, or ownership?
- What wording better reflects the source material?
- Does the correction introduce any new inference?
- What still needs human confirmation?
- What corrected candidate should replace the current version?
Narrowing Decisions That Claim More Than Was Chosen
- Which part of this decision goes beyond the actual commitment?
- What was definitely chosen?
- What remains open?
- What scope or consequence has been overstated?
- Would narrowing the statement preserve the real decision?
- What downstream assumptions depend on the broader wording?
- What is the smallest accurate commitment supported by the evidence?
Removing Unsupported Content From Candidate Decisions
- Which elements of this candidate lack support?
- Are they unsupported choice, benefit, alternative, downside, scope, or ownership?
- Were they inferred or simply added?
- How material are they to the decision?
- Can the candidate remain coherent without them?
- Which gaps should be marked for confirmation rather than filled?
- What supported version remains after removal?
Revising Rejected Alternatives After Challenge
- What challenge shows the current rejected alternative may be wrong?
- What alternative is better supported?
- Was the original alternative ever genuinely available?
- Does the revised alternative change the tradeoff materially?
- What evidence supports the new wording?
- Does the chosen path still make sense against the revised alternative?
- What should be changed in the decision record?
Revising Accepted Downsides After Challenge
- What challenge shows the current downside may be inaccurate?
- What cost is actually created by the decision?
- Is the revised downside supported or inferred?
- Does the new downside change how the commitment should be understood?
- Is the decision owner still willing to accept it?
- Does the choice itself remain valid?
- What should be updated or reconfirmed?
Replacing Overbroad Candidates With Smaller Real Commitments
- Which parts of the candidate are broader than the evidence supports?
- What smaller commitment is clearly present?
- What remains undecided outside that smaller scope?
- Does the narrower decision still have a meaningful benefit, alternative, and downside?
- What downstream work can safely rely on it?
- What should remain explicitly open?
- What smaller candidate best reflects the actual commitment?
Rejecting Candidate Decisions That No One Will Own
- Who would need to own this candidate decision?
- Does anyone actually accept that ownership?
- Does the proposed owner have authority?
- Is the lack of ownership evidence that the decision never existed?
- Are people still acting as though the commitment were real?
- What work is exposed by the ownership gap?
- Should the candidate be rejected until a legitimate owner confirms it?
Rejecting Candidate Decisions That Depend on Unresolved Choices
- Which unresolved choices does this candidate depend on?
- Are those dependencies material to the commitment?
- Could the candidate stand if they went another way?
- Is the reconstruction assuming answers that do not yet exist?
- What would be invented by accepting the candidate now?
- Can a narrower decision still be supported?
- Should the candidate be rejected or kept explicitly provisional?
Reclassifying Candidates That Are Still Open Questions
- What makes this candidate look like a decision?
- What evidence shows the choice is still open?
- Which alternatives remain under active consideration?
- Has anyone with authority committed?
- Is execution already assuming an answer?
- What should remain framed as an open question?
- How should the material be corrected to show the real status?
Concluding That No Decision Exists Yet
- What decision were we expecting to find?
- What evidence is missing?
- Which apparent commitments turn out to be intent, preference, analysis, or assumption?
- Are several alternatives still genuinely open?
- Is there a legitimate owner who has not yet committed?
- What work currently depends on a decision that does not exist?
- What should be made explicit about the absence of a decision?
Checking Decisions for Internal Consistency
Identifying Direct Contradictions Between Decisions
- Which decisions directly contradict each other?
- What action does each decision require?
- Can both commitments be true at the same time?
- Do they apply to the same scope and period?
- Which downstream work is affected by the contradiction?
- Is one decision newer or intended to supersede the other?
- What needs explicit correction or replacement?
Identifying Decisions That Assign Incompatible Responsibilities
- What responsibility does each decision assign?
- Can the assigned responsibilities coexist?
- Are two parties being made accountable for the same final commitment?
- Does one decision require behavior that another prevents?
- What authority conflicts sit behind the assignments?
- Which work will become ambiguous if the conflict remains?
- What decision needs clarification or change?
Finding Dependencies on Options Rejected Elsewhere
- Which decision depends on an option another decision rejects?
- Is that dependency explicit or hidden?
- Can both decisions still operate together?
- Which commitment was made first?
- Is the rejected option being quietly reintroduced?
- What downstream work relies on the contradiction?
- Which decision must be corrected, replaced, or explicitly superseded?
Comparing Scope Boundaries Across Decisions
- What scope does each decision cover?
- Where do the boundaries overlap or leave gaps?
- Are the same teams, products, regions, or phases treated differently?
- Could both decisions be interpreted consistently?
- Which scope boundary is authoritative?
- What execution ambiguity follows from the mismatch?
- What needs to be clarified in the decision set?
Checking Ownership and Authority Across the Decision Set
- Who owns each decision in the set?
- Are ownership boundaries consistent?
- Do any decisions assign overlapping final authority?
- Does any owner lack authority for the commitment they carry?
- Are there gaps where no one owns an essential decision?
- Could ownership conflicts undermine execution?
- What needs to be corrected before the set is relied on?
Identifying Competing Commitments for the Same Resources
- Which decisions depend on the same scarce resources?
- Can all of those commitments be met simultaneously?
- Were the competing claims visible when the decisions were made?
- Which assumptions about capacity are inconsistent?
- What happens if all teams execute as decided?
- Does resolving the conflict require a new decision?
- What inconsistency needs to be surfaced now?
Tracing Rejected Alternatives That Reappear Elsewhere
- Which rejected alternative appears again in another decision?
- Is it genuinely the same option or only similar wording?
- Was the later decision intended to reopen the earlier choice?
- Is the reappearance explicit or accidental?
- What execution conflict does this create?
- Which decision currently governs?
- Does the decision set need explicit correction or supersession?
Checking Accepted Downsides Against Other Commitments
- What downside does this decision accept?
- Does another decision promise to avoid that same downside?
- Can both commitments be honored?
- Is one statement aspiration while the other is a real decision?
- Who bears the conflict in practice?
- What will happen when the downside materializes?
- Which commitment needs correction or clarification?
Assessing Which Decisions Break When Another Changes
- Which decisions depend on the decision being changed?
- What assumptions or commitments would no longer hold?
- Are those dependencies explicit?
- Which decisions remain valid independently?
- What downstream work relies on the affected set?
- Does the change create contradictions or gaps?
- Which decisions need review, replacement, or explicit confirmation?
Surfacing Contradictions Hidden Behind Different Terminology
- Which terms may describe the same thing differently across decisions?
- Do apparently compatible statements actually require conflicting actions?
- Are different teams using different labels for the same scope or responsibility?
- What becomes contradictory once the terminology is normalized?
- Which decision meaning is intended?
- What execution ambiguity does the language create?
- What wording needs alignment without changing the underlying commitments?
Checking Whether the Decision Set Is Complete Enough
Identifying Decisions an Upcoming Commitment Depends On
- What upcoming commitment are we about to make?
- Which decisions must already exist for it to be legitimate and executable?
- Which of those decisions are explicit?
- Which remain assumed or open?
- Who owns the missing commitments?
- What becomes hard to reverse if we proceed anyway?
- What decision gaps must be closed before commitment?
Finding Fundamental Decisions That Are Still Missing
- What fundamental choice does the current work still depend on?
- Why has that choice remained implicit or deferred?
- What downstream decisions assume an answer already exists?
- Which alternatives remain open?
- Who has authority to own the missing commitment?
- What rework or conflict could result from proceeding?
- What missing decision needs to be made visible?
Surfacing Deferred Choices That Execution Already Depends On
- Which choices have been intentionally deferred?
- Which of them is execution already assuming?
- What temporary assumption is being used?
- Are different teams using different assumptions?
- What happens if the eventual decision goes another way?
- How much commitment is accumulating around the provisional path?
- Which deferred choice can no longer remain safely open?
Checking Decision Coverage Across Several Workstreams
- What decisions does each workstream rely on?
- Which commitments are shared across workstreams?
- Where do decision gaps exist between them?
- Are any workstreams operating under conflicting assumptions?
- Which decisions have no clear owner across the whole effort?
- What dependencies could expose incomplete coverage?
- Is the combined decision set sufficient for coordinated execution?
Testing Whether a Detailed Plan Rests on a Complete Decision Basis
- What major decisions does this detailed plan assume?
- Which of those decisions are actually documented?
- Are planning details hiding unresolved fundamental choices?
- Which parts of the plan would collapse if an assumed decision changed?
- What decisions remain deferred despite detailed execution planning?
- Is the plan creating false confidence about commitment?
- What decision basis needs to be completed before relying on the plan?
Identifying Missing Decisions Required for a Primary Choice to Operate
- What primary choice has already been made?
- What additional decision is unavoidable for that choice to work?
- Is the missing decision truly necessary or merely implementation detail?
- Who owns it?
- What happens if it remains unresolved?
- Are teams already filling the gap through assumptions?
- What supporting commitment needs to be made explicit?
Separating Missing Decisions From Ordinary Implementation Details
- What unresolved issue are we looking at?
- Does resolving it require choosing between meaningful alternatives?
- Does it alter scope, ownership, tradeoff, or commitment?
- Could execution teams decide it locally without changing the original decision?
- Is it reversible without reopening the main commitment?
- What happens if different teams handle it differently?
- Is this genuinely a missing decision or an implementation detail?
Finding Decision Gaps Created by Changes in Scope or Responsibility
- What changed in scope or responsibility?
- Which existing decisions no longer cover the new reality?
- What commitments were valid under the old arrangement?
- Which new choices are now required?
- Are people still relying on outdated ownership or boundaries?
- What downstream work is exposed by the gap?
- What decisions need to be added or replaced?
Checking Whether Irreversible Consequences Have an Explicit Decision Basis
- What irreversible or costly consequence is approaching?
- Which decision authorizes or accepts it?
- Is that decision explicit and owned?
- What alternative is being closed?
- What downside is being accepted?
- Are any critical elements still assumptions?
- Is the decision basis strong enough before the consequence becomes irreversible?
Determining Whether the Decision Set Is Sufficient to Proceed
- What work or commitment are we trying to proceed with?
- Which decisions does it depend on?
- Are those decisions explicit, owned, consistent, and stable?
- What unresolved questions remain?
- Which unresolved items are fundamental versus implementation detail?
- What would become expensive if we proceeded now?
- Is the decision set sufficient, or is a specific decision still missing?
Testing Whether Decisions Can Carry Commitment
Reviewing Decisions Before Contract Signature
- What decisions does signing this contract rely on?
- Are those commitments explicit and owned?
- What alternatives will signature close?
- What downsides are being accepted?
- Are any contract terms relying on unresolved internal choices?
- What would become difficult to reverse after signature?
- Is the decision basis stable enough to sign?
Reviewing Decisions Before Budget Release
- What commitments does releasing this budget make real?
- Which decisions authorize the spending?
- Are resource priorities and rejected alternatives explicit?
- What downside or opportunity cost is being accepted?
- Are any dependent decisions still unresolved?
- What becomes harder to change once funds are released?
- Is the decision basis stable enough for budget release?
Checking Decision Clarity Before Scope Freeze
- Which scope decisions are about to become fixed?
- Are inclusion and exclusion boundaries explicit?
- What alternatives will the freeze close?
- Do all affected teams interpret the scope the same way?
- Which dependencies still rely on unresolved choices?
- What rework could result from freezing ambiguous scope?
- Is the decision basis clear enough to freeze?
Confirming the Decision Basis Before External Commitment
- What external promise or obligation is about to be made?
- Which internal decisions support it?
- Who owns those decisions?
- What assumptions remain unresolved?
- What alternative is being closed externally?
- What downside is being accepted?
- Is the internal decision basis strong enough to make the commitment?
Reviewing Decisions Before Operational Rollout
- What decisions does the rollout depend on?
- Are scope, ownership, and operating boundaries explicit?
- Which alternatives are no longer available once rollout begins?
- What accepted downsides will become visible in operation?
- Are any teams still interpreting the decisions differently?
- What unresolved choice could force rollback or rework?
- Is the decision basis stable enough for rollout?
- What responsibility is being transferred?
- Which decisions define the new ownership and authority?
- Does the receiving party accept the commitment?
- Are any responsibilities shared ambiguously?
- What dependencies or assumptions remain unresolved?
- What becomes difficult to unwind after transfer?
- Is the decision basis clear enough for formal handover?
Reviewing Decisions Before Dependent Teams Begin Irreversible Work
- What irreversible work are dependent teams about to begin?
- Which decisions authorize that work?
- Are those decisions explicit and stable?
- What assumptions are the teams currently making?
- Could different interpretations produce incompatible work?
- What happens if a key decision changes afterward?
- What needs confirmation before irreversible work starts?
Testing Decisions Before Reversal Becomes Politically Difficult
- Which commitment is becoming politically harder to reverse?
- What upcoming event increases that difficulty?
- Is the decision itself explicit and owned?
- Are the tradeoffs and rejected alternatives visible?
- What unresolved challenge could later force reconsideration?
- Is pressure to continue already replacing substantive clarity?
- What must be tested before the commitment hardens further?
Testing Whether Decisions Stand Without Verbal Context
- Can someone understand the decision from the record alone?
- What meaning currently depends on remembering the discussion?
- Which assumptions are only known to people who were present?
- Could a new participant interpret the decision differently?
- Are the choice, benefit, alternative, downside, and ownership sufficiently clear?
- What would be lost if the original participants were unavailable?
- What needs to be added or clarified in the written decision?
Determining Whether the Decision Basis Is Stable Enough to Rely On
- What commitment are we about to place on this decision basis?
- Are the decisions explicit, owned, consistent, and complete enough?
- Which assumptions remain fragile?
- What disagreement could still reopen the commitment?
- What would become costly if the basis changed later?
- Is uncertainty concentrated in implementation or in the decisions themselves?
- Is the basis stable enough to rely on now?
Distinguishing Decision Problems From Execution Problems
Distinguishing Missing Decisions From Delivery Problems
- What delivery problem is being observed?
- What decision would need to exist for execution to be unambiguous?
- Is that decision actually present?
- Are teams blocked because they lack a commitment or because execution is weak?
- Would better delivery practices solve the issue without a new decision?
- What evidence points to a decision gap?
- Is the next action decision clarification or execution correction?
Tracing Rework Back to Decision Ambiguity
- What work had to be redone?
- Which decision was that work based on?
- Was the decision explicit and unambiguous at the time?
- Did different teams interpret it differently?
- Was the rework caused by poor execution or a weak decision basis?
- What ambiguity should have been surfaced earlier?
- What decision needs clarification before work continues?
Separating Conflicting Interpretations From Failure to Follow a Clear Decision
- What does the written decision actually say?
- How are different people interpreting it?
- Are those interpretations genuinely plausible from the wording?
- Or is one party simply not following a clear commitment?
- What evidence distinguishes ambiguity from non-compliance?
- Would rewriting the decision change anything?
- Is the problem decision clarity or execution discipline?
Distinguishing Scope Ambiguity From Ordinary Scope Change
- What scope was originally decided?
- What is being treated as unclear now?
- Was the boundary genuinely ambiguous from the beginning?
- Or has the required scope changed since the decision?
- What evidence shows the original commitment?
- Does the new scope require an explicit replacement decision?
- Is this clarification or a real decision change?
Separating Missing Decision Ownership From Execution Responsibility Problems
- Who owns the decision?
- Who owns execution?
- Is the current problem caused by unclear commitment authority or weak delivery responsibility?
- Can the executor act without another decision?
- Is anyone being asked to decide without authority?
- Would clearer task ownership solve the issue?
- What ownership needs clarification, if any?
Distinguishing Decision Dependencies From Operational Coordination Problems
- What dependency is causing the problem?
- Does it require an unresolved choice or merely coordination?
- Has the relevant commitment already been made?
- Are teams waiting for a decision that does not exist?
- Could normal planning or sequencing solve the issue?
- What would change if the decision were perfectly clear?
- Is the next action decision work or coordination work?
Separating Reopened Decisions From Planning Failure
- What issue is being revisited?
- Was there a clear prior decision?
- Has new information legitimately changed the basis?
- Or are execution difficulties being used to reopen an accepted tradeoff?
- Did the plan fail despite a stable decision?
- What changed since the decision was made?
- Is a new decision required, or should planning adapt to the existing one?
Distinguishing Decision Ambiguity From Capability Problems
- What outcome is failing?
- Is the decision clear about what should happen?
- Do people understand the commitment consistently?
- Does the organization have the capability to execute it?
- Would clearer wording actually solve the problem?
- Are capability gaps being misdiagnosed as decision ambiguity?
- Is the next action clarification or capability improvement?
Comparing Weak Decision Basis With Poor Implementation
- What evidence suggests the decision basis was weak?
- What evidence suggests implementation was poor?
- Were the commitments explicit before execution?
- Did teams have enough clarity to act consistently?
- Were the right decisions present but badly executed?
- Which failures would remain even with perfect implementation?
- Where should corrective action focus?
Recognizing Execution Failure Despite a Clear Decision Basis
- Was the decision explicit, owned, consistent, and complete enough?
- Did execution teams interpret it consistently?
- Were the tradeoffs and constraints understood?
- Did the failure result from planning, capability, coordination, or delivery?
- Is anyone trying to blame the decision record for an execution problem?
- Does the original commitment still stand?
- What should be addressed without reopening a clear decision unnecessarily?
Preserving Decision Integrity During Execution
Referencing Explicit Decisions When Questions Resurface
- Which existing decision is relevant to this question?
- What does the decision actually commit to?
- Is the current issue already answered by that commitment?
- Are people relying on memory or narrative instead of the written decision?
- Has anything material changed since the decision was made?
- Does the question require clarification or a new decision?
- What should be referenced before reopening the topic?
Keeping Narrative and Explanation Separate From the Decision
- What is the actual decision?
- What surrounding explanation has accumulated around it?
- Is the narrative starting to change how people interpret the commitment?
- Which parts are rationale rather than decision content?
- Could the decision still be understood without the narrative?
- Is anyone using explanation to soften or expand the commitment?
- What should remain the stable decision reference?
Preventing Plans and Documents From Quietly Changing Commitments
- What decision does this plan or document rely on?
- Does the new material preserve the same commitment?
- Where has scope, ownership, tradeoff, or alternative changed?
- Is the change merely implementation detail?
- Would the new wording alter what people are expected to do?
- Has any substantive change been explicitly decided?
- What needs correction or a formal replacement decision?
Bringing New Participants Back to the Existing Decision Basis
- Which decisions do new participants need to understand?
- What written records provide the authoritative basis?
- What context is useful without replacing the decisions themselves?
- Where might newcomers reasonably interpret the commitments differently?
- Are they being told narratives that conflict with the actual record?
- What questions reveal whether the decision basis is understood?
- What should be clarified before they begin relying on it?
Checking Materialized Downsides Against What Was Accepted
- What downside has materialized?
- What downside did the decision explicitly accept?
- Are they the same?
- Is the actual impact larger, different, or more widely distributed?
- Does the original commitment still make sense under the real downside?
- Is this simply the accepted tradeoff becoming visible?
- Does the difference require an explicit new decision?
Recognizing Rejected Alternatives Being Quietly Reintroduced
- What rejected alternative is reappearing?
- Where is it being reintroduced?
- Is this intentional or happening through local execution choices?
- Does pursuing it contradict the active decision?
- Has anything changed that would justify reopening the choice?
- Who has authority to change the commitment?
- Should the behavior stop or should a new decision be made explicitly?
- What informal agreement has been made?
- Does it alter the active decision?
- Which part of the commitment changes?
- Who made the side agreement and with what authority?
- Is it implementation detail or a substantive decision change?
- What confusion could arise if both versions continue?
- What needs to be formally clarified or replaced?
Tracing Later Disagreement Back to Specific Decisions
- What exactly are people disagreeing about now?
- Which explicit decision governs that issue?
- Do the parties interpret the same decision differently?
- Is the disagreement actually about a missing decision?
- Did a later change occur without being recorded?
- Which decision should be examined rather than debating the entire history?
- What needs clarification, correction, or explicit replacement?
Maintaining a Reliable Record of Active Decisions
- Which decisions are currently active?
- Where are they recorded?
- Can people distinguish active decisions from superseded ones?
- Are ownership and dates clear?
- Are later changes linked to the decisions they replace?
- Could someone reliably reconstruct the current commitment set?
- What recordkeeping gap threatens decision integrity?
Distinguishing Decision Clarification From Decision Change
- What part of the decision is being clarified?
- Does the proposed clarification alter scope, ownership, tradeoff, or action?
- Would someone behave differently after the clarification?
- Is new information being added that was never part of the original commitment?
- Could the original wording reasonably support the new interpretation?
- Does the change require a new owner decision?
- Should this be recorded as clarification or explicit replacement?
Changing, Reversing, and Replacing Decisions Explicitly
Reassessing Decisions When Facts Change
- What facts have changed since the decision was made?
- Which parts of the original decision depended on the old facts?
- Does the change materially affect the commitment?
- Which benefit, alternative, or downside is different now?
- Could the existing decision still stand?
- What new decision would be required if it cannot?
- How should the change be recorded without rewriting history?
Reconsidering Decisions After Assumptions Break
- Which assumption behind the decision has failed?
- How important was that assumption to the commitment?
- What part of the decision no longer holds?
- Does the failure affect the choice, benefit, alternative, or downside?
- Can the decision be narrowed rather than replaced?
- Who must own the reconsideration?
- What explicit new commitment is needed?
Revising Decisions When External Constraints Change
- What external constraint has changed?
- How did the original decision depend on the previous constraint?
- Which parts of the commitment are now impossible or inappropriate?
- What alternatives have become available or unavailable?
- Does the accepted downside change?
- Is clarification enough, or is a new decision required?
- What should explicitly supersede the old commitment?
Reconsidering Decisions When Accepted Downsides Become Unacceptable
- What downside was originally accepted?
- What has changed about its impact or acceptability?
- Is the downside still the same tradeoff that was knowingly accepted?
- Who now considers it unacceptable?
- Does avoiding it require changing the decision?
- What alternatives would reopen if the decision changes?
- What explicit new commitment is required rather than silently avoiding the downside?
- How is the existing decision being reinterpreted?
- Does the new interpretation actually contradict the original commitment?
- What behavior shows that the old decision is no longer being followed?
- Has anyone explicitly authorized a reversal?
- What changed enough to justify a new decision?
- What should the new commitment say?
- How should the reversal be recorded so the old decision is not quietly rewritten?
Replacing Existing Decisions With New Commitments
- What existing decision is being replaced?
- Why does it no longer carry the required commitment?
- What new choice is being made?
- What benefit, rejected alternative, and downside now apply?
- Who owns the replacement decision?
- Which downstream decisions depend on the change?
- How should the new decision explicitly supersede the old one?
Narrowing Decisions After Circumstances Change
- What part of the original decision can no longer stand?
- What smaller commitment remains valid?
- Which scope or obligation needs to be removed?
- Does narrowing preserve the original tradeoff?
- What downstream work is affected?
- Is the change substantial enough to require explicit replacement?
- What narrowed decision should now govern?
Identifying Which Previous Decision a New Decision Supersedes
- What earlier decision covers the same commitment?
- Does the new decision replace it fully or only partly?
- Which parts of the old decision remain active?
- Are there related decisions that also depend on the change?
- Could both records be interpreted as active?
- What ambiguity would result if supersession is not explicit?
- How should the relationship between old and new decisions be recorded?
Updating Tradeoffs When Decisions Change
- How has the chosen option changed?
- What new benefit does the revised choice create?
- What alternative is now being rejected?
- What downside is now being accepted?
- Are any old tradeoff statements no longer true?
- Would retaining the old tradeoff distort the new commitment?
- What updated decision statement accurately reflects the new choice?
Preserving Decision History Across Reversals and Replacements
- What sequence of decisions led to the current commitment?
- Which decision replaced which?
- What changed between each decision?
- Are previous decisions still visible without appearing active?
- Can someone understand why the organization changed direction?
- Are downstream references pointing to the current decision?
- What record is needed to preserve history without blurring the active commitment?