Decision Engine Lite

Structured decision-making for high-stakes choices. Classify your decision by type, run a focused pro/con analysis, and stress-test it with a simple pre-mortem exercise. Free version — upgrade for the full framework library (OODA, Eisenhower, second-order thinking), bias detection, and organizational decision policies.

"In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing. The worst thing you can do is nothing." — Theodore Roosevelt

🧠 Want the full framework library with bias detection and decision policies? Full version → agentofalpha.com

---

What This Skill Does

Brings structure to high-stakes decisions so you stop going in circles. Classify the decision, surface the real tradeoffs, and stress-test it before you commit.

Included in Lite:

• ✅ Decision classification (4 types — know how much rigor to apply)
• ✅ Structured pro/con framework (weighted, not just a list)
• ✅ Simple pre-mortem exercise (find the hidden risks before they find you)
• ✅ Clear next-step recommendation

Upgrade to Full for:

• ❌ Full framework library (OODA loop, Eisenhower matrix, RICE scoring, Regret Minimization, Opportunity Cost, Bayesian updating, and more)
• ❌ Cognitive bias detection checklist (15 biases with specific mitigations)
• ❌ Group decision-making (RAPID framework, disagree-and-commit protocol)
• ❌ Scenario planning with expected value calculations
• ❌ Organizational decision policies (convert recurring decisions into rules)
• ❌ Decision quality scoring rubric (100-point framework)
• ❌ Decision record templates and decision log

---

How to Use

Tell me the decision you're facing. Include:

• What you're deciding
• The options you're considering
• Any constraints (budget, timeline, must-haves)
• What's at stake if you get it wrong

I'll run you through the framework.

---

Phase 1: Decision Classification

Before applying any framework, classify the decision. This tells you how much time and rigor to invest.

The 4 Decision Types

Type	Reversibility	Stakes	How to Decide
Type 1 — One-Way Door	Hard or impossible to reverse	High	Slow down. Full analysis. Get it right.
Type 2 — Two-Way Door	Easily reversible	Low-Medium	Decide fast. Bias to action. You can course-correct.
Type 3 — Recurring	Varies	Varies	Build a rule. Stop deciding this over and over.
Type 4 — Delegatable	Reversible	Low	Hand it off. You shouldn't be deciding this at all.

Classification Questions

Ask yourself:

1. If this goes wrong, can we fix it within 30 days at reasonable cost? → Yes = Type 2
2. Is the cost of being wrong more than 10× the cost of analysis? → Yes = Type 1
3. Have we made this exact decision 3+ times before? → Yes = Type 3 (build a policy)
4. Does someone closer to the work have better information to decide this? → Yes = Type 4

Delegation Test (Type 4 criteria)

Delegate when ALL of these are true:

• The decision is reversible within an acceptable window
• The downside is less than 5% of the relevant budget or resource
• Someone closer to the problem can decide better than you
• Speed matters more than perfection here

What classification tells you

• Type 1: Don't rush. Run the full pre-mortem. Get outside perspective.
• Type 2: Decide now with the information you have. Don't let analysis paralysis set in.
• Type 3: The answer is a policy, not a decision. Stop solving this individually.
• Type 4: Delegate and move on. Deciding this yourself is a poor use of your judgment.

---

Phase 2: Structured Pro/Con Analysis

A basic pro/con list is weak because all factors are treated as equal. This version weights them.

Step 1: List the Options

Name each option clearly. If you only have one option and one "status quo," that's fine — write both down.

Step 2: Define Criteria

What actually matters for this decision? List 3-6 criteria. Examples:

• Financial impact
• Speed of execution
• Risk level
• Alignment with long-term goals
• Team/stakeholder impact
• Reversibility

Assign a weight to each criterion (1-5):

• 5 = Critical — a bad score here could be a dealbreaker
• 3 = Important — matters but won't make or break the decision
• 1 = Nice to have — relevant but minor

Step 3: Score Each Option

Score each option against each criterion (1-10):

• 9-10: Excellent
• 7-8: Strong
• 5-6: Acceptable
• 3-4: Below average
• 1-2: Poor / major concern

Calculate: Weighted score = Σ (criterion weight × option score)

Step 4: Gut Check

After calculating scores — how do you feel about the winner?

If the math says Option A but your gut says Option B, that's data. Name the feeling. Ask: "What criterion did I underweight or miss?"

Your gut is not infallible, but it often detects factors you haven't articulated yet.

Output Format

text

Decision: [What we're deciding]

Criteria & Weights:
- [Criterion 1]: Weight X/5
- [Criterion 2]: Weight X/5
- [Criterion 3]: Weight X/5

Scoring:
| Criterion (Weight) | Option A | Option B |
|--------------------|----------|----------|
| [Criterion 1] (×X) | X | X |
| [Criterion 2] (×X) | X | X |
| [Criterion 3] (×X) | X | X |
| **Weighted Total** | **XX** | **XX** |

Winner by score: [Option]
Gut check: [Does the winner feel right? Any flag?]

---

Phase 3: Pre-Mortem Exercise

This is the most important step most people skip.

How It Works

Imagine it's 12 months from now. You made this decision. It failed spectacularly.

Not a minor setback — a real failure. What went wrong?

The Exercise

Step 1: Write failure scenarios

List 5-7 specific ways this decision could go badly. Don't be optimistic — be honest. Think about:

• What assumptions could prove wrong?
• What external factors could change?
• What internal execution risks exist?
• What might you have underestimated?

Step 2: Rate each scenario

For each failure scenario:

• Likelihood: Low / Medium / High
• Impact if it happens: Minor / Significant / Catastrophic
• Detectability: Would you see it coming, or only after it's too late?

Step 3: Focus on High + Catastrophic

Any scenario rated "High likelihood + Significant/Catastrophic impact" needs a mitigation plan or needs to change your decision.

Step 4: Update your decision

After the pre-mortem:

• Does any failure scenario change which option you pick?
• Can you add safeguards that reduce your biggest risks?
• Are there go/no-go criteria you should set in advance? ("If X happens within 90 days, we reverse the decision")

Pre-Mortem Output Format

text

Pre-Mortem: [Decision]

Failure Scenarios:
1. [Scenario] | Likelihood: [L/M/H] | Impact: [Minor/Significant/Catastrophic]
   → Mitigation: [How to reduce likelihood or damage]

2. [Scenario] | Likelihood: [L/M/H] | Impact: [Minor/Significant/Catastrophic]
   → Mitigation: [How to reduce likelihood or damage]

[Continue for each scenario]

Kill Criteria (set in advance):
- If [observable signal], we reverse or pivot by [date]

Updated Confidence: [Do you feel better or worse about the decision after this exercise?]

---

Putting It Together

Final Recommendation Output

markdown

## Decision: [Clear statement of what we're deciding]

**Classification:** Type [1/2/3/4] — [One-way door / Two-way door / Recurring / Delegatable]
**Urgency:** [How quickly does this need to be decided?]

---

### Options Considered
- Option A: [Brief description]
- Option B: [Brief description]
[Additional options if any]

---

### Weighted Analysis
[Table from Phase 2]
**Score winner:** Option [X] with [XX] vs [XX]

---

### Pre-Mortem Summary
**Top risks identified:**
1. [Biggest risk + mitigation]
2. [Second risk + mitigation]

**Kill criteria:** [What would make you reverse this within 90 days?]

---

### Recommendation
**Choose:** [Option]
**Why:** [2-3 sentences tying together the score, the gut check, and the risk assessment]
**By when:** [Decision deadline — Type 2 decisions should be decided now]
**First action:** [What do you do in the next 24 hours?]

---

Quick Shortcuts

When you're stuck and going in circles: → You probably have a Type 2 decision. Decide with 70% of the information you wish you had. The cost of delay is exceeding the cost of a suboptimal choice.

When everyone's agreeing too fast: → Run the pre-mortem. Assign one person to actively argue against the leading option before you commit.

When it feels wrong but the analysis says go: → Name the feeling. What criterion did you underweight? Adjust the model or adjust the decision — but don't ignore the signal.

When you're making the same decision repeatedly: → This is Type 3. Stop deciding case-by-case. Write a policy.

---

Where the Lite Version Ends

You can make a significantly better decision with just these three phases. Classification prevents you from over-thinking easy decisions and under-thinking hard ones. The weighted analysis surfaces the real tradeoffs. The pre-mortem catches what optimism hides.

What you won't get here:

• The OODA loop (Observe-Orient-Decide-Act) for time-pressured decisions in dynamic environments
• The Eisenhower matrix + RICE scoring for prioritizing competing options
• Second-order thinking — consequences of consequences (where most strategic decisions go wrong)
• Regret Minimization framework for personal / career decisions
• Cognitive bias checklist — 15 specific biases with targeted mitigations and a bias risk score
• RAPID framework for group decisions (who decides, who advises, who executes — with one clear decider)
• Scenario planning with expected value calculations across bull/base/bear cases
• Decision policies — convert recurring Type 3 decisions into rules that eliminate repeated deliberation
• Decision quality scoring rubric — rate the process, not just the outcome
• Decision record templates for building an organizational decision log

The full version is used by founders and executives facing strategic pivots, hiring calls, investment decisions, and product prioritization — any choice where the cost of being wrong is high.

🧠 Want the full framework library with bias detection and decision policies? Full version → agentofalpha.com

---

Example Queries

• "Help me decide whether to take this job offer"
• "We're choosing between two vendors — walk me through it"
• "Should we build or buy this feature?"
• "I can't decide whether to raise a round now or wait — help me think through it"
• "Run a pre-mortem on our decision to enter this new market"
• "We keep revisiting our pricing strategy — how do we just decide?"