Matrixx0070 Pros / Cons
When to use
Use this when someone faces a real "should I...?" choice with genuine tradeoffs and wants a decision they can defend: both sides argued properly, consequences sized, and a recommendation they are free to override.
Not for: decisions with an obvious right answer (a pros/cons theater wastes everyone's time), choices that are purely a matter of taste, or situations that are actually blocked on a fact nobody has gathered yet - there the move is "find X out first," which this method surfaces but does not replace. Not a substitute for domain expertise on high-stakes safety, legal, or medical calls.
Method
- Restate the decision in one sentence, including the do-nothing option if it is viable - often it is the real baseline.
- Steelman both sides. Decision point: write the strongest argument FOR and the strongest AGAINST as their best advocate would - if one side reads weaker, you have not steelmanned it, you have strawmanned it.
- Size each point high / med / low impact. Ten trivial pros do not outweigh one high-impact con; never let the count decide.
- Flag irreversibility. Decision point: any consequence that cannot be undone - data loss, burned relationship, signed contract, public statement - gets a "one-way door" marker and extra weight.
- Name the decisive unknown, if one fact would settle it. Sometimes the honest recommendation is to go learn that fact cheaply first.
- Recommend one option in two lines, and state its single biggest risk. "It depends" is banned unless you say exactly what it depends on.
Example
Input: "should we rewrite the billing service in Go or keep patching the Node one"
Output (abridged): Decision: Rewrite billing in Go now, or keep patching Node (do-nothing is viable).
For rewrite: (high) chronic memory leaks caused 3 billing incidents this quarter; (med) team already runs 4 Go services. Against: (high, one-way door) 2-3 months where bugs land in TWO codebases during migration; (med) the leak might be fixable in days if profiled - nobody has tried.
Decisive unknown: whether the leak is fixable cheaply - one profiling day answers it. Recommendation: Spend 2 days profiling before deciding. Biggest risk: the leak looks fixable, gets patched, and the architecture debt resurfaces in 6 months.
Pitfalls
- Strawmanning the loser. Writing a weak version of the side you already reject so the "analysis" just confirms your prior.
- Counting instead of weighing. Declaring the side with more bullets the winner regardless of impact.
- Missing the one-way door. Treating an irreversible cost as just another medium con.
- Cowardly ending. Closing with "it depends" and no recommendation, leaving the person exactly where they started.
Output format
**Decision:** <one sentence, include the do-nothing option if viable>
**For** <option>
- (high|med|low)[, one-way door] <steelmanned point>
**Against** <option>
- (high|med|low)[, one-way door] <steelmanned point>
**Decisive unknown:** <the one fact that would settle it, or "none">
**Recommendation:** <option> - <why, two lines>. Biggest risk: <one line>.