decision-detraction

name	decision-detraction
description	Generate compelling arguments AGAINST a decision using the same evidence from the decision artifact

Decision Detraction

Purpose: Build the strongest possible case against a decision using the evidence already gathered.

Announce: "Using decision-detraction to build the counter-case."

Use Cases

• Stress-test before commitment - Test the decision's robustness by attacking it with the best arguments against
• Prepare for objections - Anticipate what critics will say so you can address concerns proactively
• Argue against external proposal - When evaluating someone else's recommendation, build the counter-case
• Intellectual honesty - Ensure you've truly considered why this decision might be wrong

Core Principle

"Same evidence, opposite conclusion"

This skill does NOT invent objections or manufacture concerns. It uses the evidence already gathered in the decision artifact - the pre-mortem scenarios, the low-confidence assumptions, the Unknown-Unknowables, the risks, the steel-manned alternatives, the reference class data - and weaves them into a compelling narrative against the decision.

The counter-case is honest because it's built from work you've already done. It's just assembled with a different purpose.

Process

Step 1: Gather Ammunition

Extract from the decision artifact:

Source	What to Extract
Pre-Mortem	Failure scenarios, especially those rated "Likely" or "Catastrophic"
Low-Confidence Assumptions	Must-be-true conditions with confidence below 70%
Unknown-Unknowables	Factors that could emerge and derail the decision
Critical Risks	Risks without adequate mitigation
Steel-Manned Alternatives	The best arguments for options we rejected
Reference Class	Base rate failures in similar decisions

If any of these sections are missing or thin, note the gap - it weakens the decision's foundation.

Step 2: Identify Strongest Arguments

Rank the gathered ammunition by severity:

1. Fatal if true - Arguments that would completely invalidate the decision
2. Serious concern - Arguments that significantly weaken the case
3. Valid caution - Arguments that raise legitimate questions

Select the top 3-5 arguments across categories. Quality over quantity - a counter-case with three devastating points beats one with ten weak objections.

Step 3: Structure the Counter-Case

Build the argument with this flow:

Opening

• State what's being decided
• Acknowledge the work done
• Signal that serious concerns remain

Core Arguments

• Present each concern with evidence from the artifact
• Connect concerns to form a coherent narrative
• Don't just list problems - explain why they matter together

Alternative Path

• Reference the steel-manned alternative
• Explain what would need to be true for it to be better
• Note what we give up with the current decision

Conclusion

• Summarize the case against
• State conditions under which you'd change your position
• Acknowledge what the counter-case might be missing

Step 4: Maintain Intellectual Honesty

This is:

• Using evidence we already gathered
• Presenting that evidence from a different angle
• Helping stress-test the decision
• Preparing for real objections

This is NOT:

• Manufacturing concerns that don't exist
• Advocacy for a predetermined conclusion
• Undermining a good decision
• A recommendation to reverse the decision

The counter-case is a tool for thinking, not a verdict.

Step 5: Choose Your Use

For internal stress-test:

• Share with decision makers before finalizing
• Use to identify gaps that need addressing
• Strengthen the decision by addressing concerns

For external defense:

• Prepare responses to each point raised
• Identify which concerns you accept vs. reject
• Document why you're proceeding despite objections

Output Template

Save the counter-case using this structure:

# Counter-Case: [Decision Title]

**Generated:** [Date]
**Decision Artifact:** [Link to decision.md]

## Summary of Concerns

In one paragraph, summarize why this decision might be wrong.

## Core Concerns

### Concern 1: [Title]

**Evidence:** [From artifact]
**Why it matters:** [Explanation]
**Severity:** [Fatal if true / Serious / Valid caution]

### Concern 2: [Title]

**Evidence:** [From artifact]
**Why it matters:** [Explanation]
**Severity:** [Fatal if true / Serious / Valid caution]

### Concern 3: [Title]

**Evidence:** [From artifact]
**Why it matters:** [Explanation]
**Severity:** [Fatal if true / Serious / Valid caution]

## What We're Betting On

List the assumptions that must be true for this decision to succeed, ordered by confidence (lowest first).

| Assumption | Confidence | What Happens If Wrong |
|------------|------------|----------------------|
| [Assumption] | [%] | [Consequence] |

## What History Says

Reference class data suggesting caution:
- [Historical example or base rate]
- [Pattern of failure in similar decisions]

## The Alternative

**If not this, then what?**

[Steel-manned alternative from the artifact]

**Why it might be better:**
- [Reason 1]
- [Reason 2]

**What we'd need to believe:**
- [Condition for alternative to be superior]

## Conclusion

[One paragraph summarizing the case against]

**This counter-case would be invalidated if:**
- [Condition that would eliminate the concern]
- [Evidence that would change the assessment]

---

*This counter-case was generated for [stress-testing / objection preparation / external evaluation]. It uses evidence from the decision artifact and does not represent a recommendation to reverse the decision.*

Save Location

docs/decisions/YYYY-MM-DD-<decision-slug>/advocacy/counter-case.md

Create the advocacy/ subdirectory within the decision folder if it doesn't exist.

When to Use

Situation	Action
Before finalizing a major decision	Generate counter-case, review with stakeholders
Before presenting to leadership	Prepare responses to likely objections
When asked to evaluate external proposal	Build counter-case to ensure balanced view
When you feel too confident	Use as intellectual honesty check

Writing Style

Apply deliberate-decisions:writing-style throughout.

Counter-cases use Shortform style:

• 2-3 pages maximum
• Front-load the strongest concern
• Active voice, concrete numbers
• Bullets for evidence, tables for assumptions
• Clear structure: Concern → Evidence → Severity

Key principles:

• Direct, confident tone (even when raising doubts)
• Quantify risks where possible
• No hedging language - state concerns clearly

Relationship to /advocate

/advocate and /detract are complementary tools:

• /advocate - Builds the case FOR the decision (Longform)
• /detract - Builds the case AGAINST the decision (Shortform)

Using both creates a complete picture. Neither represents the "right" answer - they're lenses for examining the decision from multiple angles.

Related Skills

• writing-style - Apply to all output artifacts
• decision-advocacy - Complementary skill for building case FOR
• contrarian-analysis - Source material for counter-case