Decision Meeting Format

Decision Meeting Format Skill

Meetings fail to decide for structural reasons, not character ones: the options were never written down (so debate invents them live), the decider was never named (so consensus is assumed and never arrives), and the decision was never recorded (so it gets relitigated by everyone who remembers it differently). The format fixes all three before the room opens: a pre-read with the options steelmanned, the decider and decision rule announced in the invite, a timeboxed sequence that separates clarifying from advocating, and a close where the decision — with its why and its dissent — lands in the log before anyone leaves.

What This Skill Produces

• The pre-read spec — the options doc (each steelmanned, with the recommendation) shipped 24h+ ahead
• The in-room sequence — clarify → advocate → decide, timeboxed, with the facilitator moves per phase
• The decision rule — who decides and how (decider-decides / consent / vote), announced before debate
• The record — decision, why, dissent noted, owner and date — logged before adjourning

Required Inputs

Ask for these if not provided:

• The decision and its options — what's being decided, the real options (the pre-read needs them written; a decision meeting without written options is a brainstorm wearing a suit)
• The decider — one name, or the explicit rule (consent? majority?); "we'll align" is not a rule, and discovering the rule mid-conflict is the classic failure
• The stakes and the reversibility — reversible decisions get lighter process (the decision-journal two-way-door logic); one-way doors earn the full format
• The relitigation history — has this been "decided" before? Then the record section works overtime, and the meeting opens by naming what reopening required

Framework: The Format Rules

1. The pre-read carries the options: each option with its honest best case, cost, and risk (proposal-skeleton steelman rules), plus a recommendation — shipped 24h ahead. In-room reading time is the fallback (ten silent minutes beats unprepped debate), never the plan.
2. Name the decider before the debate: the invite states "input: everyone · decision: [name]" or the consent rule — announced before positions harden, because assigning the decider after disagreement looks like picking the winner. Ambient consensus-assumption is where decisions go to orbit.
3. Separate clarifying from advocating: phase one is questions-only (understanding the options, no positions — facilitator enforces); phase two is timeboxed advocacy (strongest case per option, dissent actively solicited: "who sees a problem with the recommendation?"); phase three is the decider deciding in the room — deferring the call to "after I reflect" is sometimes right and always announced with a date, never silent.
4. Dissent gets recorded, not converted: the goal is a decision people can commit to, not one everyone agrees with — "disagree and commit" works when the dissent is named in the record ("X preferred option B for reasons Y — noted, decided A"). Unrecorded dissent becomes next quarter's relitigation fuel.
5. The record is the product: decision, the why in two sentences, dissent noted, owner + date, where it lives (the decision log) — written and shown in the meeting's last five minutes, because records written later are written differently. Reopening rule stated: new information reopens; new mood doesn't.

Output Format

Decision Meeting: [the decision] — decider: [name/rule]

The Pre-Read (ships [date])

[Options steelmanned + recommendation · the read-by expectation]

The Sequence ([N] min total)

[Clarify (Q-only, X min) → Advocate (timeboxed, dissent solicited) → Decide (in-room, or deferred-with-date)]

The Record (last 5 minutes, on screen)

[Decision · why (2 sentences) · dissent noted · owner + date · logged at (location) · reopening rule]

Quality Checks

• Options were written and steelmanned before the room
• The decider/rule was announced in the invite, not discovered in conflict
• Clarifying and advocating were separated and timeboxed
• Dissent was solicited and recorded, not smoothed over
• The record existed on screen before adjournment

Anti-Patterns

• Do not debate unwritten options — live-invented options get live-invented analysis
• Do not assume consensus as the rule — unnamed rules default to loudest-wins
• Do not let advocacy start during clarification — positions taken early calcify early
• Do not convert dissent by attrition — recorded disagreement beats exhausted agreement
• Do not write the record tomorrow — tomorrow's record is a different meeting's minutes