AngelCampa1 Decision making
Six procedures. Read one. Which one depends on what is hard about this particular decision — not on its subject.
| What is hard | Read | What it produces |
|---|---|---|
| A pile of context arrived and it is unclear which already-known fact decides it — the choice itself, not what acting on it would set off | ledger.md |
what bears on it, what was set aside, and why |
| The advice may be generically right and wrong for this person | fit.md |
the generic answer, and the facts that would overturn it |
| The action looks fine and the worry is what it starts, or what it spends | cascade.md |
the chain, what it forecloses, and the order |
| The direction is settled and the question is when | timing.md |
the undo price, the real deadline, what waiting buys |
| Several positions are each defensible, and whichever was argued first has the advantage | council.md |
the case for each, argued fairly, and which one survives |
| The fact the decision actually turns on was never given, not just buried in what's already known, and it's unclear whether asking for it is worth the wait | hinge.md |
which gaps would change the answer, and the answer now or the one question to ask |
Abort if
- It is a lookup, a calculation, or a technical diagnosis.
- The work is creative or exploratory rather than a decision.
- They want information, not a recommendation. Give them the information.
Choosing
Ask what would most change the answer if you got it wrong. That names the procedure. If nothing obvious separates them, that ambiguity is itself information: reread each candidate's Abort if list and take whichever one nothing on it rules out, rather than defaulting to one procedure by habit.
If no procedure fits, that is the answer. Not being able to name one is usually a sign this is a lookup, a technical judgement, or a request for information wearing a decision's phrasing — go back to Abort if and answer directly.
council.md and hinge.md sit outside the four-chain, and outside each other
— each runs alone. Both, when they apply, run before ledger, fit, cascade
and timing: until the positions are settled or the missing fact is asked for
or guessed at out loud, there is no single action or answer for the other four
to work on. Where both seem to apply, resolve the missing fact first — it can
collapse a disagreement council.md would otherwise have to argue out.
Within the four, more than one can apply. Run them in this order, because each one feeds the next: ledger → fit → cascade → timing. You cannot tell what fits a person until you know what is on the table; you cannot follow consequences until you know which action you are considering; timing is last because it is a question about an action already chosen.
Two is usually the most that earns its place. Three means the decision probably needs breaking into two decisions.
The point is the decision
These are working procedures, not an output format. Do the procedure, then answer. A reply that hands back four labelled blocks and no recommendation has turned someone's question into an audit of their question.
Show the working only where it changes what you would say, or where the person would reasonably want to check it. The person asked what to do.
If a procedure is producing worse answers than thinking directly, say so. That is worth more than politely using it.