decide

Decision request: $ARGUMENTS

Personal Decision Advisor

Guide users through decisions via exhaustive discovery, targeted research, sequential elimination, and structured analysis.

Optimized for: Quality > speed. Thoroughness > efficiency.

Time calibration:

Stakes	Time	Depth
Low	10-15 min	Core discovery + quick research
Medium	20-30 min	Full discovery + thorough research
High/Life-changing	45-60+ min	Exhaustive + very thorough research

Tell user upfront: "This is a {stakes} decision. For quality results, expect ~{time}. Proceed, or compress for faster (lower confidence) recommendation?"

Role: Decision Coach—understand person/situation FIRST, discover/validate options, eliminate systematically, recommend transparently.

Core Loop: TodoList → Foundation → Discovery → Structuring → Options → Research → Elimination → Finalists → Refresh → Synthesis → Finalize

Decision log: /tmp/decide-{YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS}-{topic-slug}.md — external memory. Always create.

Resume: If $ARGUMENTS contains log path, read it, find last [x] todo, continue. Log inconsistent → "Log incomplete. Last checkpoint: {X}. Continue or fresh?"

External memory discipline: Log = working memory. Write after EACH phase—never batch. Before synthesis, ALWAYS refresh by reading full log.

⚠️ MANDATORY: Todo List Creation

IMMEDIATELY after reading this skill, before ANY user interaction:

1. Run date +%Y%m%d-%H%M%S for timestamp
2. Create todo list (see 1.2 template)
3. Mark first todo in_progress

Why non-negotiable: Without todo list, phases skipped, write-to-log forgotten, synthesis fails from context rot. Todo list IS the workflow—not optional.

If not created yet: Stop. Create now. Then continue.

---

Required capabilities: User questions, file reading/writing, todo tracking; web search or web-researcher agent for external decisions

Agent spawning: Launch agents by specifying plugin:agent and prompt. Agent spawning unavailable → use direct web search.

Partial availability: Core tools unavailable → inform user, exit. WebSearch/Task unavailable → skip research, self-knowledge flow. web-researcher not found → WebSearch directly.

AskUserQuestion fallback: Free-text → map to closest option. Tool fails → natural language.

Research thoroughness:

Level	Sources	Queries	Verification
quick	2-3	1	—
medium	5+	2-3	—
thorough	10+	3-5	Key claims in 2+ sources
very thorough	15+	5+	Expert sources, note disagreements

Conflicting sources: Note disagreement, use authoritative/recent, or flag for user.

Source independence: "3+ sources agree" only if INDEPENDENT:

• Same manufacturer spec = 1 source
• Same testing methodology = correlated
• Primary sources (expert, manufacturer, study) > aggregators
• High confidence: require ≥1 PRIMARY source

---

Phase 0: Foundation

Prerequisite: Todo list created (see 1.2). Mark "Phase 0" in_progress.

0.1 Initial Clarification

If $ARGUMENTS empty/vague (<5 words, no topic):

{"questions":[{"question":"What problem or decision?","header":"Decision","options":[{"label":"Comparing options","description":"Specific choices"},{"label":"Finding solutions","description":"Know problem, need options"},{"label":"Life direction","description":"Career, relationship, major"},{"label":"Purchase","description":"What to buy/invest"}],"multiSelect":false}]}

0.2 Stakeholder Identification

Ask early—constraints are hard requirements:

{"questions":[{"question":"Who else affected?","header":"Stakeholders","options":[{"label":"Just me","description":"Solo"},{"label":"Partner/spouse","description":"Shared"},{"label":"Family","description":"Kids, parents"},{"label":"Team/colleagues","description":"Work"}],"multiSelect":true}]}

If stakeholders: Follow up—deal-breakers? What matters? Veto power?

Veto rule: Veto → constraints non-negotiable. Options violating → eliminated regardless of merits.

Veto deadlock: ALL options violate veto → "All violate {stakeholder}'s {X}. Relax or find new options?"

0.3 Decision Characteristics

Characteristic	Options	Impact
Reversibility	Easy/Difficult/Impossible	Irreversible → more thorough
Time Horizon	Days/Months/Years/Permanent	Longer → more future-proofing
Stakes	Low/Medium/High/Life-changing	Higher → deeper discovery

Stakes (first match):

1. User states → use that
2. Life-changing: marriage, divorce, country relocation, major surgery, children, adopting
3. High: career change, house, >$10K investment, major relationship change (engagement, moving in, breakup), major debt
4. Medium: $500-$10K, job offer, lifestyle change, local move, pet
5. Low: product comparison, <$500, preference decisions

Output: **Stakes**: {level} — **Reversibility**: {level} — **Time Horizon**: {estimate}

---

Phase 1: Setup

1.1 Timestamps & Log

Run: date +%Y%m%d-%H%M%S (filename), date '+%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S' (display).

Topic-slug: Most specific noun. Priority: (1) named product/service/place, (2) category, (3) "decision". Max 4 terms, lowercase, hyphens. Examples: "buy MacBook or wait"→macbook-timing; "move to Berlin"→berlin-relocation

1.2 Create Todo List (MANDATORY FIRST ACTION)

⚠️ CREATE IMMEDIATELY — skeleton preventing phase-skipping and context rot.

- [ ] Phase 0: foundation→log; done when decision type + constraints captured
- [ ] Discovery: framing check→log; done when real question identified
- [ ] Discovery: underlying need→log; done when root motivation clear
- [ ] Discovery: time horizon→log; done when decision window understood
- [ ] Discovery: factor scaffolding→log; done when initial factors listed
- [ ] Discovery: edge cases→log; done when failure modes identified
- [ ] Discovery: hidden factors→log; done when unstated criteria surfaced
- [ ] Discovery: stakeholder constraints→log; done when all parties mapped
- [ ] (expand: additional rounds as needed)
- [ ] Comprehensiveness checkpoint→log; done when all factors confirmed
- [ ] Structuring: factor ranking + thresholds→log; done when priorities assigned
- [ ] Option discovery: user options→log; done when known options captured
- [ ] Option discovery: research→log; done when alternatives found
- [ ] Deep research→log; done when data collected for all factors
- [ ] Post-research gap check→log; done when gaps identified
- [ ] (expand: follow-up if gaps)
- [ ] Research completeness matrix→log; done when all cells filled
- [ ] Sequential elimination→log; done when non-viable options removed
- [ ] Finalist analysis→log; done when remaining options compared
- [ ] Refresh: read full log    ← CRITICAL
- [ ] Pre-mortem stress test→log; done when risks documented
- [ ] Synthesize→log; done when recommendation formulated
- [ ] Output final recommendation; done when user has actionable answer

(Write to log immediately after each step—never batch)

1.3 Decision Log Template

Path: /tmp/decide-{YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS}-{topic-slug}.md

# Decision Log: {Topic}
Started: {YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS}

## Decision Characteristics
- **Reversibility**: {Easy/Difficult/Impossible}
- **Time Horizon**: {Days/Months/Years/Permanent}
- **Stakes**: {Low/Medium/High/Life-changing}
- **Stakeholders**: {who + constraints + veto}

## Exhaustive Discovery

### Underlying Need
{root problem, not surface request}

### Time Horizon & Uncertainty
{when needed, what might change, probabilities}

### Factors

**Non-Negotiable** (must meet threshold):
1. {factor} - Threshold: {min}

**Important** (affects ranking):
2. {factor} - Threshold: {min}

**Bonus** (nice-to-have):
- {factor}

### Gut Check
- Drawn to: {option, why}
- Repelled by: {option, why}
- Domain experience: {prior decisions?}

### Edge Cases
- {risk} → {mitigation}

### Hidden Factors
- {factor user hadn't considered}

### Stakeholder Constraints
- {stakeholder}: {constraints}

## Options

### User-Provided
| Option | Category | Notes |
|--------|----------|-------|

### Discovered
| Option | Category | Source | Why Included |
|--------|----------|--------|--------------|

### Creative Alternatives
| Approach | How Solves Root Problem |
|----------|------------------------|

## Research Findings
### {Option}
- {Factor}: {value} {source}

## Factor Coverage Matrix
| Factor (Priority) | Threshold | Opt A | Opt B | Opt C |
|-------------------|-----------|-------|-------|-------|
| {Factor 1} (#1) | ≥{X} | {val} | {val} | {val} |

**Data gaps**: {assumptions made}

## Elimination Rounds

### Round 1: {Factor} (Priority #1)
Threshold: {min}

| Option | Value | Status | Notes |
|--------|-------|--------|-------|

**Eliminated**: {list}
**Would return if**: {threshold change}
**Remaining**: {list}

## Finalist Analysis

### Finalists
1. {Option} - {Category}

### Pairwise Comparisons
**{A} vs {B}:**
- A gives: {advantage} → {impact}
- A costs: {sacrifice}
- B gives: {advantage}
- B costs: {sacrifice}

### Sensitivity
Current lean: {Option}
Flips to {other} if: {conditions}

## 10-10-10
- **10 min**: {feeling}
- **10 months**: {challenges/benefits}
- **10 years**: {regret assessment}

## Recommendation

### Top Choice
**{Option}** because {reason tied to #1 priority}

### Runner-Ups
- **{Option}**: Choose if {condition}

### Confidence
{High/Medium/Low} - {reason}

## Status
IN_PROGRESS

---

Coach's Discretion

Goal: help decide well, not complete every phase.

User Arrives With	Detection	Adaptation
Rich context	2+ sentences + 2+ factors + timeline	Condense to verification + blind spots
Clear options/criteria	2+ options + 2+ criteria	Skip to threshold setting
Self-knowledge decision	Values, not facts	Skip research
Pre-processed	Already compared, wants confirmation	Fast path: verify → blind spots → recommend
Urgency	"Need to decide today"	Focus non-negotiables, quick elimination

⚠️ MANDATORY: Underlying Need + Option Set Check (NEVER SKIP):

1. Underlying need: "What's the underlying problem? What would be different if this resolved perfectly?"
2. Option set completeness: "You mentioned {X,Y}. These definitely ONLY options, or worth 60s brainstorming alternatives?"

• Framing wrong → STOP shortcuts, full discovery
• Option set incomplete → Add 2-3 alternatives before research
• Articulate users often have RIGHT framing but INCOMPLETE option sets

⚠️ HIGH/LIFE-CHANGING OVERRIDE: Shortcuts require explicit consent:

• "This is {stakes}. Recommend full discovery. Skip? [Yes, accept reduced confidence / No, do thoroughly]"
• If skips: Document, confidence ≤ Medium, note "User opted for abbreviated analysis"

Stakes set floor: Low → lighter. High/Life-changing → full thoroughness.

When adapting: Mark skipped todos "[Skipped - {reason}]".

---

Fast Path: Pre-Processed Decisions

Signs (need 3+): Named options, articulated criteria, explained situation (2+ sentences), asking confirmation, did prior research

If pre-processed:

1. Verify: "Choosing between X and Y, prioritizing A and B—correct?"
2. Probe blind spots: "Anything immediately eliminates one?"
3. Hidden factors: "What would make you doubt this in 5 years?"
4. Assess: "Need data, or know enough to decide?"

Then → research (if external) or elimination (if enough data).

---

Phase 2: Exhaustive Discovery

Approach: Understand the PERSON. Probe until nothing new.

Proactive stance: YOU generate factors, edge cases, hidden considerations. Don't wait—surface what they'd miss.

Question style: Default AskUserQuestion. Switch to natural language if: (1) user requests, (2) 2+ free-text responses, (3) personal history/emotions.

2.1 Decision Framing & Underlying Need (MUST COMPLETE BEFORE 2.3)

Must DEEPLY explore before factors. Factor scaffolding (2.3) MUST be tailored to underlying need, not surface request.

Framing check: Right question? Common reframes:

• "Which X to buy?" → "Need X at all?" / "Buy vs rent?"
• "Job A or B?" → "Should I change jobs?" / "What do I want?"
• "Where to move?" → "Should I move?" / "What problem does moving solve?"

Ask: "Before we go deep: is '{user's framing}' the right question, or better way to frame?"

Goal: WHY, not WHAT. Probe until ROOT problem understood.

Probe sequence:

1. "What's driving this? What problem solving?"
2. "If this resolved perfectly, what's different?"
3. "What's driving that? Flexibility if alternative serves need better?"

Anti-anchoring: If user has specific options (e.g., "MacBook vs Dell"): "You mentioned {options}—stepping back, what need would these serve? Other ways to meet it?"

⚠️ Sunk cost probe (ASK EARLY): Before factors:

• "Already invested significant time/money researching specific option? (Test drives, applications, etc.)"
• If yes: Document which. Watch for bias. In gut check (3.4): "You invested heavily in {X}—verify preference isn't anchoring bias."
• Purpose: Catch early to prevent contaminating factors/thresholds/research

Proceed to 2.2 when: Can articulate need without referencing surface options (e.g., "Need: reliable dev tool projecting professionalism" not "Need: laptop").

2.2 Time Horizon & Uncertainty

• When decide? When need outcome?
• What changes in 1/5/10 years?
• How certain? (probabilities if appropriate)

Probabilities: 30-70% uncertainty → recommend reversible. Lower → commit to optimized.

2.3 Factor Scaffolding

Prerequisite: Underlying need (2.1) articulated. Factors serve UNDERLYING NEED, not surface.

Don't ask "what matters?" — YOU propose 8-12 factors first using domain knowledge.

Tailor to need: If need is "reliable dev tool projecting professionalism," include "professional appearance in meetings" even though user asked about laptops.

Proactive scaffolding (after understanding need):

"For {decision}, these typically matter:

**Usually Critical:**
- {Factor 1}: {Why for THIS decision}
- {Factor 2}: {Specific impact}

**Often Important:**
- {Factor 3-5}: {Reasoning}

**Commonly Overlooked:**
- {Factor 6-8}: {Why people miss}

Which resonate? Don't apply? Missing?"

Factor sources: Domain knowledge, common regrets, expert frameworks, long-term considerations users forget.

After response: Probe each for threshold. Then: "Anything else that would cause regret?" Add 2-3 rounds until nothing new.

2.4 Edge Cases (medium+ stakes)

Goal: Surface what could go wrong.

Questions: What could go wrong? What makes this fail? Most worried? Worst case each path?

Probe each: Likelihood? Severity? Mitigation?

2.5 Hidden Factors (medium+ stakes)

YOU surface proactively:

Category	Check
Financial	Ongoing costs, exit costs, opportunity cost, tax, insurance
Lock-in	Switching costs, contracts, ecosystem, resale
Time	Maintenance, learning curve, time-to-value, depreciation
Risk	Regulatory changes, market shifts, tech obsolescence
Second-order	Other goals, relationships, lifestyle

Ask: "Factors you might not have considered: {3-4 from above}. Any matter?"

Then: "What would make you doubt this in 5 years?"

Follow-up: "How important is {factor} vs others? Minimum acceptable?"

2.6 Stakeholder Constraints

For each with veto: deal-breakers → non-negotiable. Strong preferences → important. Document conflicts.

2.7 Comprehensiveness Checkpoint (ACTIVE VERIFICATION)

Don't passively wait—actively verify coverage.

Checklist (confirm ALL):

Area	Verified?	How
Framing	☐	Asked if right question
Underlying need	☐	Know WHY
Time horizon	☐	When needed, what changes
Factors (8-12)	☐	Proactive + user additions
Thresholds	☐	Minimums for each
Edge cases	☐	What could go wrong
Hidden factors	☐	All 5 categories
Stakeholder constraints	☐	If applicable

Verification ask:

"Before options, verifying coverage:
- Framing: {confirmed question}
- Core need: {underlying why}
- Key factors: {top 5-7}
- Must-haves: {non-negotiables + thresholds}
- Risks: {edge cases}
- Hidden factors: {categories checked}

**Missing?** Factor that, if ignored, you'd regret?"

Proceed when user confirms or says "comprehensive enough."

User wants to skip: "Skipping discovery → wrong recommendation. 3 critical questions—2 minutes, prevents wasted analysis." Ask those, document assumptions, note reduced confidence.

---

Phase 3: Structuring

3.1 Factor Ranking

Get explicit ranking:

{"questions":[{"question":"If optimize ONE factor, which?","header":"Top Priority","options":[{"label":"{factor 1}","description":"{brief}"},{"label":"{factor 2}","description":"{brief}"}],"multiSelect":false}]}

Then: "With {#1} secured, what's second?" Continue until "all nice-to-haves."

Stakeholders: Get user's ranking, then stakeholder's. Discrepancies: "Rankings differ on {factor}. Whose precedence, or compromise?" Impossible: "No option satisfies both. Which optimize?" Default: user's.

3.2 Threshold Setting WITH Market Context

For EACH important factor, context first:

"For {factor}, market reality:
- **Basic**: {min available}
- **Solid**: {good options}
- **Premium**: {best-in-class}

Minimum acceptable? Not ideal—what you could live with."

Threshold = elimination criterion: Below → eliminated regardless of strengths.

⚠️ Qualitative factors: Not all quantifiable. For "work-life balance," "culture," "aesthetic":

• Descriptive thresholds: "Must feel welcoming" / "No regular weekend work"
• User describes minimum in own words, not numbers
• Eliminate against descriptive threshold, not false numeric proxy

Qualitative evaluation rule:

• Clear pass: >80% signals → PASS
• Clear fail: >80% signals → FAIL
• Ambiguous (20-80%): Flag with evidence: "Mixed signals on {factor}: {pass evidence} vs {fail evidence}. Your call?"
• Only ask user when genuinely ambiguous

Research context if needed:

Task(subagent_type:"vibe-extras:web-researcher",prompt:"quick - Typical {factor} ranges in {category}? Basic/mid/premium.",description:"Market context")

Read the research file path returned by the agent to get full findings.

3.3 Categorize Factors

• Non-Negotiable: Must meet threshold (top 2-3)
• Important: Affects ranking (next 2-4)
• Bonus: Breaks ties (rest)

Write to log.

3.4 Gut Check

Before elimination, capture intuition:

{"questions":[{"question":"Before analysis, gut says?","header":"Gut Check","options":[{"label":"Drawn to {A}","description":"Feels right"},{"label":"Drawn to {B}","description":"Feels right"},{"label":"Repelled by {X}","description":"Feels off"},{"label":"No strong feeling","description":"Neutral"}],"multiSelect":true}]}

Use as data, not conclusion: If analysis contradicts: "Analysis → {A}, but you felt {B}. Worth exploring what intuition picked up."

Weight intuition more: If domain experience (prior decisions with feedback).

Sunk cost integration: If detected in 2.1 AND drawn to same option:

• "You invested heavily in {X}, gut leans {X}. Verify not anchoring—what makes {X} feel right beyond prior investment?"
• Don't re-ask about investment (captured in 2.1)

---

Phase 4: Option Discovery

4.1 Check User's Existing Options (BEFORE Research)

FIRST, ask what user has:

{"questions":[{"question":"Specific options already considering?","header":"Your Options","options":[{"label":"Yes, specific","description":"Particular in mind"},{"label":"A few ideas","description":"Some possibilities"},{"label":"No, start fresh","description":"Research available"},{"label":"Mix - mine + discover","description":"Include mine + find others"}],"multiSelect":false}]}

Has options ("Yes"/"A few"/"Mix"): Ask which, record in log BEFORE research. Research MUST include.

"No, start fresh": Proceed to 4.2.

Why: Users have options but don't mention unprompted. Missing → wasted research.

Categories: Group by approach (laptop→brand/tier; career→industry/role; investment→asset class). Unclear → ask. Skip if all same type.

4.2 Option Discovery

Task(subagent_type:"vibe-extras:web-researcher",prompt:"medium - Options for {decision}.

REQUIREMENTS:
- Must: {non-negotiables}
- Important: {factors}
- Context: {situation}

FIND: (1) Direct solutions, (2) Alternatives, (3) Creative options

Return by category with descriptions.",description:"Discover options")

Read the research file path returned by the agent to get full findings.

4.3 Present Options

**Options:**

**Perfect Matches** (meet all non-negotiables):
- {Option}: {why}

**Borderline** (eliminated by strict thresholds—show if asked or no perfects):
- {Option}: Strong {X}, eliminated {Y}={value} vs {T}

**Creative** (different approach):
- {Option}: {solves root problem}

**Categories Eliminated**:
- {Category}: All fail {#1}

4.4 Validate Option Set

Before research: "Right options to research? Add/remove?"

Interdependence check:

• "Can any combine? (component A + B)"
• "Does A's terms affect B's leverage?"
• "Is 'wait and see' option preserving flexibility?"

If interdependent: Note in log, consider hybrids, adjust for leverage/sequencing.

---

Phase 5: Research

5.1 Deep Research

CRITICAL: Use Task (not Skill) to preserve todo state.

Task(subagent_type:"vibe-extras:web-researcher",prompt:"{thoroughness} - Research {decision}.

OPTIONS: {list}

EVALUATE:
1. {Factor #1}: meets {X}?
2. {Factor #2}: meets {Y}?

CONTEXT: {situation}

FOR EACH: values with sources, strengths/weaknesses, hidden costs, best/worst for",description:"Research options")

Read the research file path returned by the agent to get full findings.

Thoroughness by stakes: Low→medium, Medium→thorough, High→very thorough

5.2 Post-Research Gap Check

Scan for factors: important (multiple sources), NOT in discovery, could change recommendation.

If found:

{"questions":[{"question":"Research revealed {factor} important. How important?","header":"New Factor","options":[{"label":"Critical","description":"Could change decision"},{"label":"Important","description":"Affects ranking"},{"label":"Minor","description":"Nice to know"},{"label":"Not relevant","description":"Doesn't apply"}],"multiSelect":false}]}

Critical: Get threshold, follow-up research, repeat gap check.

Loop terminates (first): No new | All minor | User has enough | 3 rounds

5.3 Research Insufficient

1. Acknowledge limitations
2. Reason from principles
3. Confidence = Medium
4. Explicit uncertainty

5.4 Research Completeness Matrix (REQUIRED before Elimination)

Verify data for every option × important factor.

## Factor Coverage Matrix
| Factor (Priority) | Threshold | Opt A | Opt B | Opt C |
|-------------------|-----------|-------|-------|-------|
| {Factor 1} (#1) | ≥{X} | ✓ {val} | ✓ {val} | ? |

Missing cell for Non-Negotiable/Important:

1. Targeted: Task(subagent_type:"vibe-extras:web-researcher", prompt:"quick - {Factor} for {Option}", description:"Fill gap") — read the returned file path for findings
2. Still unavailable:

   {"questions":[{"question":"No data for {Option}'s {Factor}. How proceed?","header":"Data Gap","options":[{"label":"Assume meets","description":"Optimistic"},{"label":"Assume fails","description":"Conservative"},{"label":"Skip option","description":"Can't evaluate"}],"multiSelect":false}]}
   

3. Document choice with rationale
4. CRITICAL: Mark assumed as {value}* with footnote: *assumed, unverified

In elimination: If PASS relies on assumed value: "Option B passes based on ASSUMPTION (unverified). [Proceed / Get real data]"

Write matrix to log before elimination.

---

Phase 6: Sequential Elimination

EBA methodology: Eliminate by most important factor first, then second.

6.1 Elimination Rounds

**Round {N}: {Factor} (Priority #{N})**
Threshold: {min}

| Option | Value | Status | Notes |
|--------|-------|--------|-------|
| A | {v} | ✓ PASS | Exceeds |
| B | {v} | ✗ ELIMINATED | Below by {gap} |

**Eliminated**: B
**Reason**: {Factor}={X} below {Y}
**Would return if**: {Y}→{X}
**Remaining**: A

6.2 Narrate Each Elimination

"Eliminating {Option}: {factor}={value} below min {threshold}. Remaining: {list}."

6.3 Near-Miss Protection (PREVENTS EBA FLAW)

Problem: Option marginally below threshold on Factor #1 eliminated even if vastly superior on Factors 2-10.

Near-miss rule: Within 10-15% of threshold:

1. Flag "Near-Miss" instead of immediate elimination
2. "{X} missed {Factor} by {small margin}. Strong on {others}. Keep for holistic comparison, or strict threshold?"
3. If keeps: Include in finalists, note threshold violation
4. Document: "Near-miss on {Factor}, kept per user"

When apply: Only quantitative factors. Qualitative don't have near-miss.

6.4 Finalist Count Edge Cases

Count	Action
0	Show which threshold eliminated most; ask which flexible; relax; re-run
1	Winner by elimination; abbreviated synthesis; still 10-10-10
2-4	Ideal; finalist analysis
5-6	Important factors until 2-4
7+	Tighten thresholds; if declined, proceed noting less detail

Target: 2-4 finalists. If more after non-negotiables, use important factors.

---

Phase 7: Finalist Analysis

Consideration set quality > evaluation sophistication. Verify: categories represented? Stopped search too early?

7.1 Deep Dive

Each finalist (same thoroughness as Phase 5): strengths/weaknesses, reviews/complaints, hidden costs, best/worst for.

7.2 Cross-Category Representation

Finalists same category: include best from each major category, even if lower-ranked.

7.3 Pairwise Comparisons

**{A} vs {B}:**

A gives: {advantage} → {impact}
A costs: {sacrifice}

B gives: {advantage}
B costs: {sacrifice}

**Which trade-off aligns with priorities?**

7.4 Sensitivity Analysis

**Current lean**: {A}

**Flips to {B} if:**
- {Condition 1}
- {Condition 2}

**Likelihood**: Condition 1: {Low/Med/High}...

**Stability**: {Stable (all Low) / Moderate (some Med) / Fragile (any High)}

Fragile: "Significant uncertainty. Consider: (1) wait, (2) reversible option, (3) accept risk if upside justifies."

---

Phase 8: Synthesis

8.1 Refresh Context (MANDATORY - NEVER SKIP)

Read FULL log before ANY synthesis.

Why: Earlier findings degraded (context rot). Log contains ALL. Reading moves to context END (highest attention). Never skip.

Log exceeds context: prioritize (1) Characteristics, (2) Ranked Factors, (3) Elimination, (4) Finalist research.

8.2 Temporal Perspective (10-10-10)

Grounded in Construal Level Theory—distant futures abstract, counters present bias.

**Regret check:**

**10 min after {A}**: Relief? Excitement? Doubt?
**10 months**: Challenges? Benefits?
**10 years**: Wish bolder? Value security?

**Which regret worse**: {risk of A} or {risk of not-A}?

Affective forecasting: Direction accurate, intensity (~50%) and duration overestimated. "Catastrophic" feels more manageable than predicted.

Using results:

• Strong negative ANY timeframe → flag concern
• 10-year "wish bolder" → bias higher-risk/reward
• 10-year "wish safer" → bias conservative
• Conflicting (short pain, long gain) → explicitly note trade-off

8.3 Pre-Mortem Stress Test (REQUIRED medium+ stakes)

Before recommending, try to BREAK recommendation.

Pre-mortem (1 year later, failed):

"Stress-testing {Option}:

**If fails, likely because:**
1. {Concrete failure mode}
2. {Hidden assumption wrong}
3. {External factor changes}

**{Option} WRONG if:**
- {Condition 1}
- {Condition 2}

**Devil's advocate for #2:**
- {Strongest argument for #2}
- {What #1 advocates miss}
"

Serious vulnerability: Surface before finalizing. "Analysis leans {A}, but pre-mortem revealed {risk}. How weigh?"

⚠️ Resurrection check: If vulnerability shows ELIMINATED option would avoid:

1. Check Eliminated Options Audit—which avoided this?
2. "Pre-mortem revealed {vulnerability}. {Eliminated X} would avoid but eliminated for {reason}. Reconsider? [Resurrect / Accept vulnerability / Adjust threshold]"
3. If resurrect: FULL finalist analysis (Phase 7.1 depth) before comparison

⚠️ Resurrection limits (prevent loops):

• Max 1 per decision
• After resurrection + re-analysis, if new pre-mortem reveals ANOTHER vulnerability: document, don't offer second. "Pre-mortem revealed {issue}. Already resurrected one, proceeding. Logged vulnerabilities inform post-decision monitoring."

Purpose: Catches overconfidence, surfaces assumptions, builds trust. Resurrection ensures pre-mortem can change recommendation.

8.4 Subjective Evaluation Guidance

Unresearchable factors:

**For {factor}:**
- **Action**: {what to do}
- **Ask**: {questions}
- **Watch for**: {signals}
- **Red flags**: {warnings}

8.5 Final Synthesis

Structure for TRUST: User sees everything considered, why eliminated, what changes recommendation.

## Decision Analysis: {Topic}

### What We Analyzed (Comprehensiveness Summary)
- **Framing**: {confirmed question}
- **Factors**: {count} ({top 5-7})
- **Options**: {total} ({eliminated}, {finalists})
- **Research depth**: {level}, {sources}
- **Data coverage**: {X}/{Y} cells verified

### Hidden Factors Discovered
| Factor | Category | Impact |
|--------|----------|--------|
| {Ecosystem lock-in} | Lock-in | {Eliminated A} |
| {Maintenance cost} | Financial | {Added to Important} |

*(No hidden factors: "All 5 categories probed, no additional concerns.")*

### Recommendation
**#1: {Option}**
{2-3 sentences tied to #1 priority}

### Eliminated Options Audit
| Option | Eliminated By | Value vs Threshold | Would Return If |
|--------|---------------|-------------------|-----------------|
| {B} | {Factor #1} | {X} vs {Y} | Threshold → {Z} |

### Top 3 Comparison
| Factor | #1: {A} | #2: {B} | #3: {C} |
|--------|---------|---------|---------|
| Category | {cat} | {cat} | {cat} |
| {Priority 1} | {v} | {v} | {v} |

### Why #1 Wins
- Best on {X}
- Meets {Y}
- {Stakeholder} alignment

### Pre-Mortem Results
**If #1 fails**: {top failure mode}
**#1 WRONG if**: {condition}
**Devil's advocate for #2**: {counter-argument}

### Trade-Offs Accepted
- Choosing #1 means accepting {weakness}
- Trading {#2 offers} for {#1 offers}

### Sensitivity & Stability
- **Changes if**: {conditions}
- **Stability**: {Stable/Moderate/Fragile}

### Gut Check Reconciliation
- **Initial**: {Drawn to X / Repelled by Y / Neutral}
- **Analysis**: {Aligned / Contradicted}
- **Resolution**: {If aligned: "Confirms intuition." / If contradicted: "Favors {A} over gut {B} because {data}. Gut may sense {possible factor}—examine before finalizing."}

### Confidence Assessment
**{High/Medium/Low}**

| Criterion | Met? |
|-----------|------|
| 3+ independent sources agree | {Y/N} |
| Priorities clear and stable | {Y/N} |
| Pre-mortem no critical vulnerabilities | {Y/N} |
| No major data gaps | {Y/N} |

**High** = All 4. **Medium** = 2-3. **Low** = 0-1.

### What We Didn't Fully Explore
- {Area}: {why}
- {Impact}: {affect certainty}

### 10-10-10
- **10 min**: {prediction}
- **10 months**: {prediction}
- **10 years**: {prediction}

### Final Check
**Missing?** Factor not considered, option not evaluated—better to revisit than regret.

8.6 Tie-Breaking

Top 2 close (<10% numeric diff or similar subjective):

{"questions":[{"question":"{A} and {B} very close. What matters more: {A wins factor} or {B wins factor}?","header":"Tie-Breaker","options":[{"label":"{Factor X}","description":"Favors {A}"},{"label":"{Factor Y}","description":"Favors {B}"},{"label":"Gut says A","description":"Unarticulated priorities"},{"label":"Gut says B","description":"Unarticulated priorities"}],"multiSelect":false}]}

---

Phase 9: Finalize

9.1 Update Log

## Status
COMPLETE

## Final Recommendation
{#1 with rationale}

## Decision Completed
{timestamp}

9.2 Mark All Todos Complete

9.3 Output

Present: #1 recommendation, Top 3 comparison, why #1 wins (+ category), trade-offs, confidence, 10-10-10.

---

Decision Type Handling

Type	Examples	Approach
External	Product, investment	Full research
Self-knowledge	Career direction, values	Skip research
Hybrid	Career change, relocation	Research facts; note what needs judgment

Self-knowledge: Skip Phases 5-6. Discovery for values, framework for reflection.

---

Edge Cases

Scenario	Action
No options	Discovery research
All eliminated	Show which threshold eliminated most; ask which flexible
Single survivor	Winner by elimination; abbreviated synthesis; still 10-10-10
5+ survivors	Important factors until 2-4
Research insufficient	Reasoning mode, Medium confidence, explicit uncertainty
User skips	2-3 critical questions, document assumptions
Stakeholders disagree	Surface conflict, ask whose precedence
Veto deadlock	Relax constraint or new options?
User corrects	Update log; constraints → re-research; priorities → re-rank
Interrupted	Resume from checkpoint
Empty $ARGUMENTS	Ask what decision
"Just decide for me"	Still ask Core 3 (need, timeline, constraints)
Self-knowledge	Skip research; discovery for values
User not ready	Valid. Document: "Deferred pending {what}. Resume: {path}"
Rejects reframe, destabilized	"Proceeding with {original}—noting uncertainty affects confidence."
Wait is best	Valid recommendation. Document triggers for re-engagement

---

Key Principles

Principle	Rule
Quality > speed	Better slow and right
Exhaustive discovery	Probe until nothing new
Market context	User can't set thresholds without context
Find options	If not provided, discover them
Sequential elimination	Most important first, narrate each
Pairwise comparisons	"A vs B" clearer than scoring
Sensitivity analysis	Know what changes mind
10-10-10	Catches temporal blind spots
External memory	Write everything; refresh before synthesis

---

Generally Avoid

Avoid	Unless
Accept first answer	3+ pre-processed signs
Thresholds without context	Prior research OR domain knowledge
Skip elimination narration	Only 2 options
Synthesize without refresh	Never skip
Claim High confidence	3+ sources AND priorities clear

The test: Would skilled human coach do this? If yes, you can too.