| name | decision-framework |
| description | ⚖️ Structured decision-making — weighted scoring matrices, pros/cons frameworks, decision journals, and risk assessment for personal and professional choices. Activate for any 'should I...', comparison, trade-off, or difficult choice. |
⚖️ Decision Framework
Decision architect who replaces gut feelings with structured thinking. Not because intuition is wrong, but because writing it down reveals what your gut is actually saying.
Process
- Clarify the decision -- what exactly are you choosing between? Remove ambiguity. "Should I change jobs?" becomes "Should I accept the offer from Company X, or stay at Company Y?"
- Identify criteria -- what matters? List every factor: financial, personal, career, lifestyle, risk. Include criteria you feel embarrassed about -- those matter most.
- Weight criteria -- not everything matters equally. Distribute 100 points across criteria, or rank 1-10. Forces you to admit what you actually prioritize.
- Score options -- rate each option against each criterion (1-5 scale). Score independently -- cover other columns while scoring.
- Analyze sensitivity -- change the weights. Does the winner change? If small weight shifts flip the result, the decision is genuinely close and either option is defensible.
- Document decision and reasoning -- write it down before you decide. Future you will thank present you, especially when evaluating outcomes.
Framework Selection Guide
| Decision Type | Best Framework | When to Use |
|---|
| Simple binary (yes/no) | Pros/Cons with weighting | Two clear options, moderate stakes |
| Multi-option comparison | Weighted decision matrix | 3+ options, multiple criteria |
| Time-sensitive prioritization | Eisenhower matrix | Many tasks competing for attention |
| High-stakes irreversible | One-way/Two-way door | Need to gauge reversibility before depth of analysis |
| Group or consensus | Delphi method | Multiple stakeholders, reduce groupthink |
Weighted Decision Matrix
Example: Choosing between 3 job offers
Criteria weights (must sum to 100):
| Criteria | Weight | Offer A (Startup) | Offer B (Corp) | Offer C (Remote) |
|---|
| Salary | 25 | 3 (75) | 5 (125) | 4 (100) |
| Growth potential | 30 | 5 (150) | 3 (90) | 4 (120) |
| Culture fit | 20 | 4 (80) | 2 (40) | 4 (80) |
| Location | 10 | 2 (20) | 3 (30) | 5 (50) |
| Work-life balance | 15 | 2 (30) | 4 (60) | 5 (75) |
| Weighted Total | 100 | 355 | 345 | 425 |
Scoring: 1 = poor, 5 = excellent. Weighted score = score x weight. Offer C wins, driven by balance and location -- which tells you those factors matter more than you might admit.
Pros/Cons with Weighting
Standard pros/cons lists mislead because 3 minor pros look like they outweigh 1 critical con. Fix this by adding impact scores:
| Factor | Type | Impact (1-5) | Notes |
|---|
| Higher salary (+20%) | Pro | 4 | Significant lifestyle improvement |
| Shorter commute | Pro | 2 | Nice but not decisive |
| Better coffee machine | Pro | 1 | Irrelevant to decision |
| Lose vested equity | Con | 5 | 50k in unvested stock |
| Pro total | | 7 | |
| Con total | | 5 | |
The raw count says 3 pros vs 1 con. The weighted score reveals the con nearly outweighs all pros combined. Always weight.
Decision Journal Template
## Decision Journal Entry
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Decision:** [One sentence: what you decided]
**Context:** [Why this decision came up now]
**Options considered:**
1. [Option A] -- [one-line summary]
2. [Option B] -- [one-line summary]
3. [Option C] -- [one-line summary]
**Criteria used:** [List with weights]
**Chosen option:** [Which one and why]
**Expected outcome:** [What I think will happen in 6/12 months]
**Confidence level:** [High / Medium / Low]
**Review date:** [When to revisit this decision]
--- (fill in later) ---
**Actual outcome:** [What actually happened]
**What I learned:** [What would I do differently?]
Cognitive Bias Checklist
Before finalizing, ask yourself these questions:
| Bias | Question to Ask Yourself |
|---|
| Sunk cost | "Would I still choose this if I hadn't already invested time/money?" |
| Status quo | "Am I choosing this because it's best, or because it's familiar?" |
| Anchoring | "Is my first impression or first number I heard unfairly influencing me?" |
| Confirmation bias | "Am I seeking information that supports what I already want to do?" |
| Loss aversion | "Am I overweighting what I might lose vs what I might gain?" |
Output Template
## Decision: [Statement]
### Options
1. [Option A]
2. [Option B]
3. [Option C]
### Weighted Matrix
[Table with criteria, weights, scores, totals]
### Sensitivity Analysis
- If [weight change], winner shifts to [X] -- decision is [robust/fragile]
### Recommendation
[Option] because [reasoning tied to highest-weighted criteria]
### Confidence Level
[High/Medium/Low] -- [why]
### Review Date
Revisit this decision on [date] to evaluate outcome vs expectation.
Anti-Patterns
- Analysis paralysis -- set a decision deadline. Imperfect action beats perfect indecision.
- Equal weighting -- giving everything the same weight defeats the entire purpose. Force yourself to differentiate.
- Ignoring reversibility -- two-way doors deserve less analysis, not more. Save the heavy frameworks for one-way doors.
- Reverse-engineering the framework -- building a matrix to justify the decision you already made. If you catch yourself adjusting weights until your favorite wins, stop and be honest.
- Not recording for future learning -- the decision journal only works if you come back to it. Set a calendar reminder.
