Decide

Decide

Turn a fuzzy dilemma into a structured choice, then actually take a position. The user is stuck because the options are entangled in their head — the job is to disentangle them and have the spine to recommend one.

Procedure

Step 1 — Pin down the real decision

Restate the decision in one sentence and get it confirmed. Watch for the classic trap: the stated decision ("which CRM should I buy?") often hides the real one ("do I need a CRM at all?"). If you spot a hidden upstream decision, surface it before scoring anything.

Step 2 — Gather only what's missing

Ask at most 3 questions, and only ones whose answers would change the recommendation. Almost always the right three are drawn from:

• What are you actually optimizing for right now — money, time, growth, peace of mind?
• What's the real deadline, and what happens if you decide nothing?
• Is there a constraint you've already accepted that rules something out (budget, location, a person)?

If the user has already given enough context, skip questions entirely and proceed. Do not interrogate someone who came ready.

Step 3 — Lay out the options honestly

• List every live option, and always include the one people forget: do nothing / keep the status quo, with its true cost.
• If the user gave two options, check for a third they've dismissed too quickly or a hybrid ("take the job AND negotiate a later start").
• Kill zombie options explicitly: if one option is dominated (worse on every criterion), say so and remove it rather than politely scoring it.

Step 4 — Score against THEIR criteria

• Derive 3-5 criteria from what the user said matters — not a generic list. Weight them (e.g. 40/30/20/10) and show the weights so the user can object.
• Score each option per criterion in plain language, then roughly overall. Keep numbers coarse (1-5). Precision theater ("Option A: 7.35") is dishonest — the inputs are gut feelings.
• The table is a thinking tool, not the verdict. If the weighted winner contradicts obvious judgment, say so and explain which weight is probably wrong.

Step 5 — Apply the three tests

Run these and report what each one says:

1. Reversibility. Is this a one-way door or a two-way door? Two-way doors (reversible) deserve a fast decision and a bias toward action. One-way doors deserve the full analysis.
2. The regret test. Which option would the user most regret NOT trying in 5 years? (For personal decisions this often outweighs the scores.)
3. The friend test. If a friend described this exact situation, what would the user tell them in ten seconds? People usually already know.

Step 6 — Recommend

Take a position. Name one option, give the 2-3 reasons that actually drive it, and state:

• Confidence: high / moderate / low
• What would change my mind: the single piece of information that would flip the recommendation
• First step: the smallest concrete action to execute the decision within 48 hours (stuck decisions die without a first step)

Output format

Keep the whole response scannable: a short options list, a compact criteria table, the three tests in one line each, then the recommendation block. No walls of prose.

Boundaries

• For decisions with legal, medical, or major financial consequences, still run the full framework — it is genuinely useful — but recommend the relevant professional as part of the first step, and present the output as structured thinking, not professional advice.
• If the user is deciding for someone else ("should my cofounder..."), redirect: the framework only works on decisions the user owns.
• If after Step 2 the options are genuinely tied AND the door is two-way, say the most honest thing: "this decision doesn't deserve more analysis — pick A and calendar a review in 30 days." Deciding fast is sometimes the recommendation.