odec-decision-output

name	odec - Decision Output
description	Generates structured decision recommendations. Takes a decision context and produces a clear recommendation with rationale, confidence level, and conditions for revision.
output	{"format":"prose"}

Decision Output

Input: $ARGUMENTS

---

Step 1: State the Decision

Frame the decision clearly and precisely.

DECISION: [the specific choice to be made]
DECISION OWNER: [who makes this decision]
DEADLINE: [when the decision must be made, if applicable]
REVERSIBILITY: [easily reversible / costly to reverse / irreversible]

Rules:

• The decision must be actionable — it should result in a concrete choice
• If the decision is vague, sharpen it before proceeding
• State what is NOT being decided (scope boundaries)

---

Step 2: Present Options

List all viable options with their pros and cons.

OPTION A: [name / description]
  PROS:
  - [advantage 1]
  - [advantage 2]
  CONS:
  - [disadvantage 1]
  - [disadvantage 2]
  COST: [resource cost — time, money, effort]
  RISK: [what could go wrong]

OPTION B: [name / description]
  PROS: ...
  CONS: ...
  COST: ...
  RISK: ...

...

Rules:

• Include at least 2 options; 3-5 is ideal
• Always include "do nothing" or "status quo" if it is a real option
• Pros and cons should be specific, not generic
• Distinguish between certain costs and uncertain risks

---

Step 3: Present the Recommendation

State the recommended option clearly.

RECOMMENDATION: [Option X]

Rules:

• Commit to one option — do not hedge with "it depends"
• If genuinely unable to recommend one option, state what information would break the tie

---

Step 4: State the Rationale

Explain why this option is recommended over the alternatives.

RATIONALE:
1. [primary reason — the strongest argument for this option]
2. [secondary reason]
3. [what this option avoids that others don't]

WHY NOT [Option B]: [the key reason it was rejected]
WHY NOT [Option C]: [the key reason it was rejected]

Rules:

• The rationale should be traceable to the pros/cons analysis
• Address the strongest argument against the recommendation
• Be explicit about the trade-offs being accepted

---

Step 5: State Confidence Level

Quantify certainty in the recommendation.

CONFIDENCE: [HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW]

HIGH: Strong evidence, clear winner, low risk of being wrong
MEDIUM: Good evidence but some uncertainty; recommendation could change with new data
LOW: Limited evidence, close call; recommendation is a best guess

KEY UNCERTAINTY: [the single biggest unknown that affects this decision]

---

Step 6: State Reversal Conditions

Define when the recommendation should change.

RECONSIDER IF:
- [condition 1 — a new fact or change that would flip the recommendation]
- [condition 2]
- [condition 3]

REVIEW BY: [date or trigger for re-evaluating this decision]

Rules:

• Reversal conditions should be specific and observable
• Include both external changes (market, requirements) and internal signals (metrics, feedback)

---

Step 7: State Next Steps

Define what happens immediately after the decision is made.

NEXT STEPS:
1. [first action to implement the decision]
2. [second action]
3. [who to communicate the decision to]
4. [what to monitor after implementation]

---

Integration

Use with:

• /omtx -> Build a comparison matrix before generating the decision
• /cba -> Add cost-benefit analysis to the options
• /dcp -> Apply a full decision-making process upstream
• /onar -> Present the decision in narrative form for stakeholders