comparative-feasibility-ranking

name	comparative-feasibility-ranking
description	Compare feasibility across multiple candidates using multi-dimensional radar and weighted feasibility index.
dependencies	{"tactics":["multi-dimensional-readiness-scan","staged-gate-evaluation"],"sops":["feasibility-synthesis","radar-synthesis"]}

Comparative Feasibility Ranking

Purpose: Produce a defensible ranking of candidates by feasibility. Uses multi-dimensional radar charts to visualize relative strengths and a weighted feasibility index to collapse multiple dimensions into a single comparable score.

When to use:

• Multiple candidates have been assessed and need to be compared
• Stakeholders need a clear ranking to prioritize resource allocation
• You need to identify which candidates are most implementable given current constraints

Budget

Metric	Target
Candidates compared	>= 2
Dimensions in radar	>= 5
Weight justifications	1 per dimension

State Ledger

Key	Type	Description
candidates[]	array	All candidates being compared
dimension_weights{}	map	Dimension -> weight mapping
radar_data[]	array	Per-candidate radar scores
feasibility_index[]	array	Weighted composite scores
ranking[]	array	Final ranked list

Available Tactics

Tactic	When
multi-dimensional-readiness-scan	To generate per-candidate radar data for comparison
staged-gate-evaluation	To compare gate-passage likelihood across candidates

Available SOPs

SOP	Purpose
radar-synthesis	Produce radar data for each candidate
feasibility-synthesis	Produce final comparative matrix

Execution Guidance

1. Ensure all candidates have been assessed on the same dimensions
2. Normalize scores to a common scale (1-9 recommended)
3. Assign dimension weights based on context (stakeholder priorities, strategic fit)
4. Calculate weighted feasibility index for each candidate
5. Produce comparative radar visualization data
6. Rank candidates and identify clear tiers (strong/moderate/weak feasibility)

Output Format

comparative_ranking:
  dimensions: [technical, market, regulatory, resource, organizational]
  weights: {technical: 0.3, market: 0.25, regulatory: 0.2, resource: 0.15, organizational: 0.1}
  candidates:
    - {name, scores: {...}, weighted_index: 0.X, rank: N, tier: strong|moderate|weak}
  radar_data: [{candidate, dimension_scores: [...]}]
  recommendation: <top candidate(s) with rationale>
  caveats: [...]

Available Tactics

Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.

Tactic	When to use
multi-dimensional-readiness-scan	Assess readiness across multiple dimensions, synthesize into radar visualization, and identify bottleneck dimensions.
staged-gate-evaluation	Define gate criteria for each stage, evaluate candidates at each gate, and render go/kill/recycle decisions with evidence.

Available SOPs

Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.

SOP	When to use
feasibility-synthesis	Synthesize all assessments into a feasibility matrix, recommendation, and risk summary.
radar-synthesis	Synthesize multiple dimension scores into radar chart data and compute overall readiness.