cmp-comparison-impression-informed-option-evaluation

name	cmp - Comparison - Impression-Informed Option Evaluation
description	Compare options using gestalt impression + structured evaluation. Impression first, then criteria, then check for divergence.
output	{"format":"table"}

Comparison - Impression-Informed Option Evaluation

Input: $ARGUMENTS

---

Interpretations

Before executing, identify which interpretation matches the user's input:

Interpretation 1 — Decision comparison: You have concrete options and need to pick the best one for your situation (e.g., "should I go with React or Vue?" or "which job offer should I take?"). Interpretation 2 — Tradeoff mapping: You don't need a winner — you need to understand the tradeoffs, strengths, and weaknesses across options so you (or someone else) can decide later (e.g., "what are the tradeoffs between these approaches?"). Interpretation 3 — Conceptual contrast: You want to understand how two or more things differ in nature, not to choose between them but to sharpen your understanding of each (e.g., "what's the difference between strategy and tactics?" or "compare these frameworks").

If ambiguous, ask: "I can help with picking the best option, mapping tradeoffs without choosing, or clarifying how concepts differ — which fits?" If clear from context, proceed with the matching interpretation.

Core Principles

1. Impression before scoring. State your overall sense of which option is best BEFORE structured evaluation. This captures qualitative judgment that scoring can miss.

2. Tiers, not scores. Rate options as clearly better / slightly better / equivalent / slightly worse / clearly worse — not 2.3 vs 2.1. False precision obscures real differences.

3. Criteria serve the purpose. Don't evaluate against generic criteria. Ask: "What does this need to accomplish?" The answer defines what matters.

4. Divergence is data. When your impression says "B is better" but your scoring says "A wins," investigate. The divergence often reveals a missing criterion or a misjudged weight.

5. Kill clearly bad options early. Don't waste effort scoring options that fail hard requirements. Eliminate first, then compare survivors.

---

The Process

1. State the Impression

Before any structured evaluation:

OPTIONS: [List all options]
IMPRESSION: [Which seems best, at first glance? Why?]
CONFIDENCE: [HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW]

2. Define Purpose and Criteria

What must this accomplish? Derive criteria from purpose.

REQUIRED — Must have. Failure = eliminated.

- [Criterion]: [What "pass" looks like]

IMPORTANT — Strongly preferred. Failure = significant penalty.

- [Criterion]: [What good looks like]

NICE-TO-HAVE — Bonus value. Absence acceptable.

- [Criterion]: [What it adds]

3. Eliminate on Required Criteria

For each option, check required criteria. PASS or FAIL.

| Option | [Req 1] | [Req 2] | [Req 3] | Status |
|--------|---------|---------|---------|--------|
| A      | PASS    | PASS    | PASS    | Survives |
| B      | PASS    | FAIL    | PASS    | Eliminated |
| C      | PASS    | PASS    | PASS    | Survives |

Eliminated options stop here. Record why. Note: under what conditions would they pass? (prevents premature rejection)

4. Compare Survivors on Important Criteria

For each important criterion, compare survivors in TIERS:

[Criterion name]:
- A: [Evidence/reasoning] → TIER
- C: [Evidence/reasoning] → TIER

Tiers: CLEARLY BETTER / SLIGHTLY BETTER / EQUIVALENT / SLIGHTLY WORSE / CLEARLY WORSE

5. Overall Assessment

CRITERION SUMMARY:
| Criterion | A | C | Edge |
|-----------|---|---|------|
| [Crit 1]  | Slightly better | — | A |
| [Crit 2]  | — | Clearly better | C |
| [Crit 3]  | Equivalent | Equivalent | — |

OVERALL: [Which option wins on the criteria that matter most?]

6. Divergence Check

IMPRESSION said: [option X seems best]
ANALYSIS says: [option Y scores best]

DIVERGENCE? [YES/NO]
If YES: What criterion is the impression weighting that the analysis isn't?
        → [Investigate. Often reveals a missing important criterion.]

7. Recommendation

RECOMMENDATION: [Option]
CONFIDENCE: [HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW]
REASONING: [2-3 sentences explaining why, incorporating both analysis and impression]
RISKS: [What could go wrong with this choice?]
REVERSIBILITY: [How easy to change course if wrong?]

---

Handling Difficult Cases

Situation	Approach
Two options very close	Focus on REVERSIBILITY — pick the easier one to undo
Many options (5+)	Eliminate on required criteria first, then compare top 3
No clear winner	Ask: "What additional information would make this clear?"
Impression and analysis diverge strongly	The divergence IS the finding — investigate what's behind it
All options are bad	Say so. Suggest reframing the choice.

---

When Called by Other Skills

Comparison is a primitive. When called by decision_procedure, UAUA, or other skills:

• Accept options and context from the caller
• Return: impression, elimination results, tier comparison, divergence check, recommendation
• Be direct about which option wins and why

---

Pre-Completion Check

• Impression stated before analysis
• Criteria derived from purpose (not generic)
• Required criteria used for elimination
• Survivors compared in tiers (not numeric scores)
• Divergence between impression and analysis checked
• Recommendation includes reasoning and risk