andurilcode Decision Synthesis
Core principle: Analysis produces options and criteria. Synthesis produces a decision. Most frameworks diverge — generate possibilities, map complexity. This skill converges: makes a defensible, traceable choice. A good decision process maximizes reasoning quality given available information and is transparent enough to learn from.
When to Use
After other frameworks have done their work — Systems Thinking mapped structure, 5 Whys found root causes, Scenario Planning produced futures, Red Teaming attacked options, Stakeholder Mapping identified alignment needs. Now: a rich picture, multiple options, time to land.
The Core Process
Step 1: Clarify What's Being Decided
- Exact choice?
- Decision horizon (reversible 3 months? irreversible?)?
- Final authority?
- Cost of delay?
Many processes fail because people are evaluating different questions without realizing it.
Step 2: Surface All Options
List every viable option, including:
- Status quo (always an option)
- Hybrid approaches
- Sequenced approaches (do A now, revisit B in 6 months)
- Options dismissed early but worth a formal look
Step 3: Define Criteria
- Must-haves (binary — failing = eliminated)
- Want-to-haves (graded — options compared)
Good criteria: specific enough to score ("error rate < 1%"), independent (no double-counting), tied to actual goal not proxies.
Step 4: Weight the Criteria
Distribute 100 points. The allocation is the conversation — exposes hidden disagreements between stakeholders.
Step 5: Score the Options
Score each option × criterion 1–5 (or 1–10) with explicit reasoning. Scores without reasoning can't be challenged.
Step 6: Compute and Challenge
Weighted scores = signal, not verdict:
- Top scorer match intuition? If not, why?
- Which criteria drive the result? Right ones?
- Swap top-two weights — does the answer change?
- Comfortable defending this to a critic?
Output Format
Decision Statement
- Decision: [Exact choice]
- Horizon: [Reversible / Partially / Irreversible]
- Decider: [Authority]
- Deadline: [When resolved]
Options
| # | Option | Brief description |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | [Name] | [One line] |
Criteria & Weights
| Criterion | Type | Weight | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| [C1] | Must-have | — | [Why binary] |
| [C2] | Want-to-have | 35 | [Why this weight] |
| [C3] | Want-to-have | 25 | |
| 100 |
Scoring Matrix
| Option | C1 | C2 (×35) | C3 (×25) | Weighted Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | Pass | 4 → 140 | 3 → 75 | X |
| B | Pass | 2 → 70 | 5 → 125 | Y |
| C | Fail | — | — | Eliminated |
Recommendation
- Recommended: [Name]
- Primary reason: [1–2 criteria driving result]
- Main trade-off: [What it sacrifices]
- Confidence: [High/Med/Low — based on info quality, not preference strength]
Sensitivity Check
- If [top criterion] changes weight, does answer change?
- Which assumption, if wrong, most undermines this?
- What new info would re-open the decision?
Reversibility & Regret
- Can it be undone? At what cost?
- Regret minimization: which choice produces least regret if situation shifts?
- Low confidence + irreversible → flag explicitly before committing.
Decision Traps
- False consensus: Everyone nods but criteria weights were never explicit — different people solving different things.
- Analysis paralysis: More analysis rarely resolves value disagreements. Name the disagreement and call it.
- Criteria inflation: More criteria adds noise, not signal. Keep the list short and honest.
- Anchoring on first option: Evaluate all options in parallel, not sequentially.
- Score laundering: Working backwards from a preferred conclusion. The matrix is a thinking tool, not a legitimacy machine.
Thinking Triggers
- "If I decided alone, no politics, what would I choose?"
- "Are we weighting what matters or what's easy to measure?"
- "Is there a hybrid we haven't named?"
- "What would a regret minimizer choose? A risk minimizer? A maximizer?"
- "Are we delaying because we need information, or because we don't want to own the decision?"