sethmblack Decision Type Classifier
Classify decisions by reversibility (Type 1 vs Type 2) and recommend the appropriate decision-making process. Prevents organizations from applying heavy process to lightweight decisions.
When to Use
- User asks "How should we decide this?"
- Team is stuck in analysis paralysis
- Organization is moving too slowly
- Questions about decision-making process
- Request to classify decision type
Inputs
| Input | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| decision | Yes | The decision being considered |
| context | No | Stakes, timeline, resources involved |
| constraints | No | Factors limiting options |
Workflow
Step 1: Type 1 Decisions (One-Way Doors)
Characteristics:
- Irreversible or nearly irreversible
- Consequential - significant resources, reputation, or strategic direction at stake
- High cost of being wrong
- Cannot easily undo if the decision proves incorrect
Examples:
- Major acquisitions
- Shutting down a business line
- Entering a highly regulated market
- Fundamental technology architecture choices
- Key executive hires
- Large capital investments
Appropriate Process:
- Extensive deliberation
- Multiple perspectives and stakeholders
- Detailed analysis
- Senior leadership involvement
- Take time to get it right
- Document reasoning thoroughly
Step 2: Type 2 Decisions (Two-Way Doors)
Characteristics:
- Reversible
- Can be changed or undone if wrong
- Limited blast radius if incorrect
- Learning opportunity if it fails
Examples:
- Most product features
- Pricing experiments
- Marketing campaigns
- Process changes
- Tool selections
- Hiring for most roles
Appropriate Process:
- Fast decision by individual or small team
- 70% information rule (don't wait for certainty)
- Bias for action
- Course correct if wrong
- Document decision for learning
Step 3: The 70% Rule
For Type 2 decisions: "If you wait for 90% of the information, in most cases, you're probably being slow." Make the decision when you have about 70% of the information you wish you had. The cost of delay often exceeds the cost of being wrong.
Step 4: The Bezos Warning
"As organizations get large, there seems to be a tendency to use the heavy-weight Type 1 decision-making process on most decisions, including many Type 2 decisions. The end result of this is slowness, unthoughtful risk aversion, failure to experiment sufficiently, and consequently diminished invention."
Classification Criteria
Reversibility Test
| Question | Type 1 Indicator | Type 2 Indicator |
|---|---|---|
| Can we undo this in 6 months? | No or very costly | Yes, relatively easily |
| What's the cost of reversal? | Very high | Low to moderate |
| Does it lock in future choices? | Significantly | Not really |
| Can we test at small scale first? | No | Yes |
Consequence Test
| Question | Type 1 Indicator | Type 2 Indicator |
|---|---|---|
| What's at stake financially? | Significant % of resources | Small % of resources |
| Impact on customer trust if wrong? | High | Low |
| Impact on strategic direction? | Changes trajectory | Doesn't change trajectory |
| Reputational risk? | Significant | Minimal |
Surprising Classifications
Some decisions that seem Type 1 are actually Type 2:
- Amazon Prime at launch (could have been wound down)
- AWS at launch (could have been shut down)
- Most new features (can be removed)
- New market entry (can exit if not working)
The question is not "Is this important?" but "Is this reversible?"
Output Format
## Decision Classification
### Decision
[Restate the decision]
### Classification: [TYPE 1 / TYPE 2]
### Reasoning
**Reversibility Assessment:**
- [Can it be undone?]
- [Cost of reversal]
- [Lock-in effects]
**Consequence Assessment:**
- [Financial stakes]
- [Customer impact]
- [Strategic impact]
### Recommended Process
**Decision makers:** [Who should decide]
**Information needed:** [What to gather, respecting 70% rule for Type 2]
**Timeline:** [How quickly to decide]
**Documentation:** [What to record]
### Watch Out For
[Common mistakes for this decision type]
### If This Were the Opposite Type
[What would change if this were actually Type 1/Type 2]
Constraints
- Do not default to Type 1 out of caution
- Reversibility is the key criterion, not importance
- Consider what happens if you're wrong
- Speed has value; delay has cost
- "We need more data" is often Day 2 thinking in disguise
Outputs
Primary Output: A structured analysis document that identifies and articulates patterns, insights, and actionable recommendations based on the input data.
Format:
## Analysis: [Topic]
### Key Findings
- [Finding 1]
- [Finding 2]
- [Finding 3]
### Recommendations
1. [Action 1]
2. [Action 2]
3. [Action 3]
Example output: See the Example section below for a complete demonstration.
Additional Notes
Best practices:
- Use this skill when the situation clearly matches its intended use cases
- Combine with related skills for comprehensive analysis
- Iterate on outputs if initial results don't fully meet requirements
Common variations:
- Adjust the depth of analysis based on available time and information
- Scale the approach for different levels of complexity
- Adapt the output format to audience needs
When to skip this skill:
- The situation doesn't match the core use cases
- Simpler approaches would be more appropriate
- Time constraints require faster methods
Example
Input: "We're debating whether to switch our customer support from email to chat-first. Should we treat this as a big strategic decision?"
Output:
Why this works:
This example demonstrates the key principles of the skill in action. The approach is effective because:
- It follows the systematic workflow outlined above
- It shows concrete application of the framework
- It produces actionable, specific outputs rather than vague generalizations
- The analysis is grounded in observable details
- The recommendations are prioritized and implementable
Alternative applications:
This same approach can be applied to:
- Different contexts within the same domain
- Related but distinct problem types
- Scaled up or down depending on scope
- Combined with complementary analytical frameworks
Decision Classification
Decision
Switch customer support from email-first to chat-first.
Classification: TYPE 2
Reasoning
Reversibility Assessment:
- Can it be undone? Yes - can revert to email-first within weeks
- Cost of reversal: Moderate - some retraining, system reconfiguration
- Lock-in effects: None significant - not changing underlying technology
Consequence Assessment:
- Financial stakes: Implementation cost, not existential
- Customer impact: Temporary adjustment; customers can still email
- Strategic impact: Operational change, not strategic direction change
Recommended Process
Decision makers: Head of Customer Support with input from 2-3 senior support reps Information needed:
- Current channel preferences from recent tickets (you have this)
- Chat tool costs (get quote this week)
- Don't need: Exhaustive customer survey, competitive analysis, board approval Timeline: Decide within 5 business days Documentation: Brief memo on reasoning, success metrics, 90-day review date
Watch Out For
- Don't form a committee - this is a Type 2 decision being treated as Type 1
- Don't survey customers extensively - observe behavior instead
- Don't wait for perfect data on chat effectiveness - run a pilot
- Don't require unanimous agreement - disagree and commit
If This Were Actually Type 1
This would be Type 1 if:
- You were eliminating email support entirely with no path back
- You were signing a 5-year exclusive contract with a chat vendor
- Chat-first was part of a fundamental repositioning of your brand
- The cost of the chat system was material to company finances
None of those apply here. This is a Type 2 decision being over-processed.
Recommendation: Make the decision this week. Run chat-first as a pilot with 30% of tickets. Measure. Adjust. Expand or revert based on data. Stop debating.
Integration
This skill is part of the Jeff Bezos expert persona. Use it when organizations are slow, stuck, or treating reversible decisions with irreversible-decision gravity.