deliberation

Deliberation

Surface genuine tension in a decision before committing to a direction.

When to use

Some decisions get worse when you're forced to choose too early. Use deliberation when:

• The options themselves are not yet well-defined
• The problem may be framed incorrectly (the real question hasn't been asked)
• Multiple legitimate constraints pull in different directions
• Brainstorming feels premature — there's no clear "right shape" for the solution yet

Do not use for: decisions that are already well-framed with clear options. Those go directly to brainstorming. Deliberation is for when you're not yet ready for options.

Procedure

1. Name the decision

State the decision being deliberated in one sentence. Be precise — a vague decision produces vague perspectives.

Example: "Should we migrate the authentication layer from JWT to session cookies?"

2. Identify 3–5 genuine stakeholder perspectives

Choose perspectives that have real, distinct stakes in the decision. Each perspective represents a legitimate set of constraints or values — not a person, but a role with a coherent viewpoint.

Good perspectives for technical decisions:

• The Security Engineer — attack surface, credential management, audit trail
• The Developer Experience Advocate — implementation complexity, debugging, onboarding
• The Ops/Infrastructure Engineer — deployment, scaling, observability, failure modes
• The Maintainability Advocate — long-term code health, testability, cognitive load
• The Performance Engineer — latency, throughput, caching, resource cost
• The User/Product Perspective — visible user impact, reliability, behaviour changes

Choose only perspectives with genuine stakes in this specific decision. Three well-chosen perspectives beat five generic ones.

3. Let each perspective speak once

For each perspective in turn:

• State what this perspective most values in the context of this decision
• Identify the specific concern or constraint it sees
• Name what it would lose in each direction being considered

Ground rules:

• Each perspective speaks once only — no rebuttal, no scoring, no debate
• Do not rank or evaluate perspectives as they speak
• Do not let one perspective address another's concerns

4. Listen for convergence and tension

After all perspectives have spoken, identify:

Convergence — where all (or most) perspectives agree, despite coming from different values. These points are load-bearing: a decision that violates them will cause problems regardless of which option is chosen.

Live tension — where perspectives genuinely disagree and no option fully satisfies all of them. These are the real trade-offs. Do not paper over them — surface them explicitly.

Reframes — where the act of hearing all perspectives reveals that the original decision was mis-stated, and the real question is something else entirely.

5. Output

## Deliberation: [Decision statement]

### Perspectives

**[Perspective name]**
Values: [What this perspective cares about most]
Concern: [The specific risk or constraint it sees]
What it loses going left: [Downside of option A]
What it loses going right: [Downside of option B]

[Repeat for each perspective]

### Convergence
[Points where perspectives agree regardless of their different values]

### Live Tension
[Where perspectives genuinely disagree — the real trade-offs that cannot be avoided]

### Reframe (if applicable)
[If the deliberation revealed that the original question was wrong, state the better question here]

### Next step
[One of:
- "proceed to brainstorming with this framing"
- "return to user — the decision needs more information before proceeding"
- "the reframe changes the scope — revisit premise-check before continuing"
  *(Loop guard: if premise-check has already been invoked for this task, skip it and proceed directly to brainstorming. Never cycle between deliberation and premise-check more than once.)*
]

Rules

• Do not force a conclusion. The output is clarity about the decision space, not a recommendation.
• Do not let any perspective "win" the deliberation. All tensions remain visible.
• If the deliberation reveals a reframe, do not proceed to brainstorming until the reframe is acknowledged by the user.
• Keep each perspective to 3–5 sentences. Deliberation is not brainstorming — it is structured listening.
• If fewer than 3 genuine perspectives exist for this decision, the decision is probably already well-framed. Use brainstorming instead.