| name | s4h-decision-reversibility-analysis |
| description | Categorises a decision by reversibility and applies the appropriate level of process rigour. Triggers: 'is this reversible', 'how much should I think about this', 'one-way door', 'two-way door', 'decision type', 'how committed is this'. |
Decision Reversibility Analysis
Most people apply the same amount of thinking to every decision. This is wrong in both
directions: it produces analysis paralysis on easy reversible choices, and recklessness on
decisions that cannot be undone. The right question before deciding is not "what should
I choose?" โ it is "how much should I invest in choosing?"
Your Process
Step 1: State the Decision
Write the decision clearly. Include what is actually being committed to โ not the
framing, the underlying commitment.
Framing check: Confirm the decision and its underlying commitment before continuing. State what you've identified โ the actual decision being assessed and what would be locked in if made โ in one sentence, then use AskUserQuestion:
- Question: "I'm reading this as: [your one-sentence framing of the decision and its underlying commitment]. Is that right?"
- Header: "Framing"
- Options:
- Yes โ proceed โ framing is correct
- Adjust โ one element is off; user will correct it before you continue
- Reframe โ different decision than read; incorporate the correction before proceeding
Step 2: Assess Reversal Cost
If this decision turns out to be wrong, how expensive is it to undo? Consider: financial
cost, time cost, relationship or trust cost, technical debt introduced, market position
lost, and optionality foreclosed. Be concrete โ not "expensive" but "six months of
re-architecture and two broken partnerships."
Step 3: Classify โ Type 1 or Type 2
- Type 1 (one-way door): reversing is very costly or practically impossible. Wrong
here means significant, durable damage.
- Type 2 (two-way door): can be walked back at low cost if wrong. A review point or
small experiment can reveal the error before it compounds.
Step 4: Apply the Appropriate Process
- Type 1: slow down. Consult broadly. Surface dissent. Apply full analytical rigour.
Set explicit criteria for what "good" looks like before committing.
- Type 2: decide quickly. Set a review point. Move. Do not let this consume the time
budget of a Type 1 decision.
Step 5: Flag Misclassification Risk
Some decisions feel reversible but aren't. Network effects, sunk cost psychology,
technical lock-in, and relationship damage can make nominal two-way doors practically
one-way. Identify these explicitly.
Human Check-in
Before proceeding, use the AskUserQuestion tool. State your interpretation of the situation in 1โ2 sentences โ what is being analyzed and what the core question is โ then ask:
- Question: "My read: [your 1โ2 sentence interpretation]. How do you want to proceed?"
- Header: "Scope"
- Options:
- Full analysis โ Complete all steps, reasoning shown throughout
- Key findings only โ Bottom-line output, skip step-by-step detail
- Reversibility verdict only โ Is this reversible or not, and what that means for how much deliberation it deserves
- Reframe โ The read is off; correct it and the analysis will follow the corrected framing
Proceed based on their selection. If the user reframes, incorporate the correction before running any analysis.
Output Format
Decision: [Statement โ including the underlying commitment]
Reversal cost:
[Concrete statement of what undoing this actually costs โ time / money /
relationships / technical / optionality]
Classification: Type 1 (one-way door) / Type 2 (two-way door)
Recommended process level:
| Type | Process |
|---|
| Type 1 | Slow down โ broad consultation, explicit success criteria, full rigour |
| Type 2 | Decide quickly โ set review point, move, learn |
Misclassification risk:
[Reasons this might be harder to reverse than it appears โ or easier]
Recommendation:
[Classification + what to do next based on it]
Notes
The most expensive error is treating a Type 1 decision as Type 2 โ deciding quickly on
something that cannot be undone. But the second-most expensive error is treating Type 2
decisions as Type 1, because the opportunity cost of delay is real and cumulative.
What's Next
After delivering this output, use AskUserQuestion to offer the next move:
- Question: "Reversibility assessed. What's next?"
- Header: "Next"
- Options:
/s4h-decision-premortem-analysis โ If it's a one-way door, stress-test it thoroughly/s4h-decision-criteria-weighting โ Weight decision criteria differently given reversibility level/s4h-resource-allocation-analysis โ Calibrate resource investment to match reversibility- Done โ Wrap up and synthesise what we have so far
