solution-options

name

solution-options

description

Solution Options is the second phase after problem-firewall: generate, stress-test, and evaluate solutions from a clear Problem Frame. Use when the user has a plain desired outcome, obstacle, and root-cause condition and wants to explore solution options, evaluate tradeoffs, run a premortem, avoid binary thinking, define decision criteria, or choose what to do next. For vague, symptom-level, or solution-first problems, use problem-firewall first.

Solution Options

Use only after the problem-firewall Clarity Gate. The job is to turn a user-owned Problem Frame into a solution decision: enough credible options, enough brutal facts, and criteria decisive enough to choose.

Option-set discipline

After the option set is generated, criteria must be used to rank, lean, prune, or combine those existing options. Do not jump to a new framework, method, tactic, or skill as the recommendation unless it is clearly presented as an implementation detail of the selected option, or the user explicitly asks for new options. If a new method seems useful, first say which existing option it serves and ask for confirmation before switching modes.

Steps

1. Verify the handoff.

   • Restate the desired outcome, obstacle, root-cause condition, Solution Parking Lot, constraints, and time horizon.
   • If the Problem Frame is missing or vague, stop and route to problem-firewall; do not solve from a foggy frame.
   • Completion criterion: a clear Problem Frame and starting option set are in context.

2. Generate options.

   • Apply the 3+ Principle: produce at least three credible options, including any parked solutions.
   • If the frame is binary, run the off-the-table safeguard for each side: “What would we do if this option were impossible?”
   • Create Both-And options where opposed choices can be combined.
   • Completion criterion: at least three distinct, plausible options are named in plain language.

3. Premortem each option.

   • Face brutal facts; do not assume the ideal future.
   • For every option, map: immediate outcome, “if it goes well,” “if it goes poorly,” new problems created, and mitigations.
   • Use second-level thinking: ask “And then what?” until the important consequence of the consequence is visible.
   • Completion criterion: every option has good-case, bad-case, second-order consequence, and mitigation notes.

4. Expose opportunity costs.

   • For each option, apply the 3 lenses: “Compared with what?”, “And then what?”, “At the expense of what?”
   • Include hidden costs: time, attention, reputation, relationships, reversibility, maintenance, and foregone alternatives.
   • Completion criterion: every option states what choosing it would forgo.

5. Battle the criteria.

   • If the user has not named criteria, propose a short menu of likely criteria from the Problem Frame; do not treat the menu as final.
   • Criteria are sorting lenses for the already-listed options, not new recommendations.
   • Ask the user to pick the single most important criterion or make criteria battle pairwise: “If we could have only one of these two, which matters more?”
   • Once the user picks one priority criterion, use that criterion to lean toward, rank, or prune the listed options.
   • Prune to criteria that are clear, goal-promoting, and decisive.
   • Add quantities, thresholds, or tradeoff limits where possible.
   • Completion criterion: the user has selected or confirmed the top criterion, and that criterion has been mapped back to the existing option set.

6. Target missing information.

   • Decide what information would change the choice before gathering data.
   • Prefer HiFi information: source-near evidence, experiments, direct observation, and people closest to the problem.
   • When using people, inspect incentives and ask how they think: variables, hidden knowledge, and decision process.
   • Completion criterion: every decision-critical unknown is converted into a source, experiment, or question; irrelevant data is ignored.

7. Choose or design the next test.

   • Apply the ordered criteria to the existing options first. If they tie, return to Step 5; the criteria are not decisive yet.
   • Show how the top criterion changes the ranking or emphasis of the named options before recommending.
   • Recommend one named option, a Both-And hybrid, or a low-risk experiment tied to a named option if the missing information is still decision-critical.
   • The agent may rank and recommend, but the user owns the final choice; ask for confirmation before treating an option as chosen.
   • Include risks, safeguards, first action, and kill/revisit criteria.
   • Completion criterion: the user has chosen one path or one concrete information-gathering test.

Default Output Format

When presenting Solution Options, use this order unless the user asks otherwise. The format is prescribed; the content should stay concise and proportionate to the stakes.

1. Problem Frame Snapshot

• Desired outcome:
• Obstacle:
• Root-cause condition:
• Constraints:
• Time horizon:
• Parked solutions:

2. Option Set

Generate at least three credible options before ranking. Include parked solutions, off-the-table alternatives, and Both-And hybrids when useful.

Option A: [Plain-language name]

• What it is:
• Why it could work:

Option B: [Plain-language name]

• What it is:
• Why it could work:

Option C: [Plain-language name]

• What it is:
• Why it could work:

Optional Hybrid / Both-And Option

• What it combines:
• Why it may beat either option alone:

3. Stress Test

For each option:

• Immediate outcome:
• If it goes well:
• If it goes poorly:
• Second-order consequence:
• New problems created:
• Mitigations:
• Opportunity costs:

4. Criteria Battle

If criteria are not already confirmed, propose likely criteria from the Problem Frame and ask the user to choose the most important one. Do not rank options before criteria are confirmed.

• Candidate criteria: 1. 2. 3.
• Most important criterion:
• Secondary criteria:
• Dealbreakers / thresholds:

5. Missing Information

• What unknown would change the decision?
• Best source, experiment, or question to resolve it:

6. Recommendation / Next Test

• Recommended option:
• Why:
• Main risk:
• Safeguard:
• First action:
• Kill / revisit criteria:

Reference

Stockdale stance — keep faith in the outcome while confronting brutal facts.

Bad Outcome Principle — imagine what could go wrong and how to overcome it.

Second-level thinking — ask “And then what?” to see consequences of consequences.

3+ Principle — force at least three options; binary framing is usually a blind spot.

Opportunity cost — every option spends something, including alternatives not chosen.

Good criteria — clear, goal-promoting, and decisive.

HiFi information — close to the source and minimally filtered by other people’s incentives.

Source inspiration: Shane Parrish, Clear Thinking, chapters 4.2–4.3.