Reversible Decision Mapper

Classify a choice by reversibility, downside, delay cost, and information gaps so the user can decide now, run an experiment, gather evidence, or escalate.

Purpose

Reversible Decision Mapper helps a user stop overthinking by deciding how much analysis a choice deserves. It separates one-way decisions from two-way and sliding-door decisions, then recommends an action mode: decide now, run a small experiment, gather specific evidence, or escalate to an expert or stakeholder.

This is a prompt-only thinking framework. It does not make high-stakes decisions for the user.

Trigger

Use this skill when the user says things like:

• "I am overthinking this decision."
• "Is this reversible?"
• "Should I decide now or gather more information?"
• "Help me map a one-way versus two-way door decision."
• "I am stuck choosing between options."
• "What is the smallest safe experiment?"
• "How do I stop analysis paralysis?"

Inputs to Request

Ask for enough context to classify the decision:

1. The decision in one sentence.
2. Available options and the default if no action is taken.
3. Deadline or time pressure.
4. What could go wrong and how severe it would be.
5. What would be required to reverse or repair the decision.
6. Information gaps and what evidence would change the user's mind.
7. Stakeholders affected by the decision.
8. Whether the domain involves medical, legal, financial, safety, employment, housing, or other high-stakes consequences.

Deliverable

Produce a reversible decision map with:

• Decision statement.
• Option list and default path.
• Reversibility score.
• Downside severity.
• Cost of delay.
• Key information gaps.
• Door type: one-way, two-way, or sliding-door.
• Smallest safe experiment or rollback path.
• Decision deadline and evidence threshold.
• Recommended action mode: decide now, run experiment, gather evidence, or escalate.
• Brief rationale and review date.

Workflow

Step 1 - State the Decision Clearly

Rewrite the decision as one sentence using this pattern:

"Should I choose [option] instead of [alternative/default] by [date]?"

If the decision is actually several decisions, split it into separate decisions and map the first one that unlocks progress.

Step 2 - List Options and the Default

List each available option. Include the default if the user does nothing.

For each option, note:

• Main upside.
• Main downside.
• Who is affected.
• What commitment it creates.
• What would need to be true for it to be a good choice.

Step 3 - Score the Decision Factors

Use a simple 1 to 5 scale:

• Reversibility: 1 means easy to undo, 5 means hard or impossible to undo.
• Downside severity: 1 means minor inconvenience, 5 means severe harm or major loss.
• Cost of delay: 1 means waiting is cheap, 5 means waiting is costly.
• Information gap: 1 means enough information exists, 5 means major unknowns remain.
• Stakeholder impact: 1 means only the user is affected, 5 means many people or vulnerable people are affected.

Explain each score in plain language.

Step 4 - Classify the Door Type

Classify the choice:

• Two-way door: easy to reverse, low or moderate downside, safe to try quickly.
• Sliding-door: reversible only within a time window or with a known rollback cost.
• One-way door: hard to reverse, high downside, or major stakeholder impact.

If any factor is high-stakes, lean toward one-way or sliding-door until proven otherwise.

Step 5 - Find the Smallest Safe Experiment

For two-way and sliding-door decisions, identify a limited test:

• Trial period.
• Prototype.
• Pilot with a small group.
• Draft before commitment.
• Temporary schedule change.
• Small purchase before large purchase.
• Conversation before contract.
• Reversible version of the choice.

Name the success metric and stop condition.

Step 6 - Define Rollback or Repair Path

Describe how the user could undo, pause, or repair the decision:

• What must be preserved to reverse course?
• What deadline closes the rollback window?
• What cost would reversal create?
• Who needs advance notice?
• What documentation or agreement is needed?

If no credible rollback path exists, mark the decision as high caution.

Step 7 - Set Decision Deadline and Evidence Threshold

Prevent endless analysis by setting:

• Decision deadline.
• Evidence needed before the deadline.
• Evidence that would change the recommendation.
• What information is nice to have but not necessary.
• Review date after action.

Step 8 - Choose the Action Mode

Recommend one action mode:

• Decide now: reversible, low downside, or delay is more costly than error.
• Run experiment: reversible enough, but evidence would help.
• Gather evidence: information gap is high and evidence is obtainable before the deadline.
• Escalate: downside, irreversibility, or stakeholder impact is high enough to need expert or stakeholder review.

Step 9 - Draft the Decision Note

Provide a concise note the user can save:

• Decision.
• Chosen action mode.
• Scores and door type.
• Rationale.
• Experiment or rollback path.
• Deadline.
• Review date.
• Next physical action.

Safety Boundary

• Do not decide for the user in medical, legal, financial, safety-critical, housing, immigration, employment, or other high-stakes domains.
• Do not pressure the user into irreversible choices.
• If downside severity, irreversibility, or stakeholder impact is high, recommend qualified advice or stakeholder review.
• Treat uncertainty honestly. Do not convert missing information into confidence.
• If the user describes danger, coercion, self-harm risk, abuse, or urgent legal exposure, prioritize immediate human, professional, or emergency support.

Acceptance Criteria

A successful run includes:

1. The decision is rewritten in one clear sentence.
2. Options and the default path are listed.
3. Reversibility, downside, delay cost, information gap, and stakeholder impact are scored.
4. The decision is classified as one-way, two-way, or sliding-door.
5. A smallest safe experiment or rollback path is identified when appropriate.
6. A decision deadline and evidence threshold are set.
7. The recommendation uses one of four action modes.
8. High-stakes decisions are escalated rather than decided by the skill.