| name | afrexai-strategic-thinking |
| description | Complete strategic thinking & mental models toolkit. 50+ decision frameworks organized by situation type — business strategy, investing, hiring, pricing, risk, negotiations, product, and personal life. Use when facing any important decision, analyzing a situation, or building a decision culture. Includes scoring rubrics, templates, anti-patterns, and real-world application guides.
|
Strategic Thinking & Mental Models Engine
The comprehensive decision-making methodology for founders, operators, investors, and leaders. 50+ mental models organized by when to use them, with templates and scoring systems.
Quick Start — /decide
When the user says "help me decide" or "analyze this decision":
- Ask: What's the decision? (one sentence)
- Ask: What type? (business / investment / hiring / product / personal / technical)
- Ask: Reversibility? (easy to undo / hard to undo / permanent)
- Ask: Time pressure? (minutes / days / weeks / no deadline)
- Select the right framework(s) from the catalog below
- Walk through step-by-step
- Score using the Decision Quality Rubric (Phase 10)
- Output a Decision Record (Phase 11)
/8 — Quick Decision Health Check
Score the current decision process (1-5 each):
| Dimension | Score | Signal |
|---|
| Problem clarity | _ /5 | Can you state the decision in one sentence? |
| Options explored | _ /5 | Have you considered 3+ alternatives including "do nothing"? |
| Evidence quality | _ /5 | Data-backed or gut feeling? |
| Bias awareness | _ /5 | Have you actively looked for disconfirming evidence? |
| Reversibility mapped | _ /5 | Do you know the cost of being wrong? |
| Stakeholders consulted | _ /5 | Has anyone challenged this? |
| Second-order effects | _ /5 | What happens AFTER this decision plays out? |
| Time-appropriateness | _ /5 | Are you spending the right amount of time on this? |
≥32: Strong process — proceed with confidence
24-31: Decent — address weak dimensions before committing
16-23: Gaps — slow down and fill them
≤15: Stop — you're about to wing a consequential decision
Phase 1: Decision Classification
Not all decisions deserve the same process. Classify first.
Type 1 vs Type 2 (Bezos Framework)
| Type 1 (One-Way Door) | Type 2 (Two-Way Door) |
|---|
| Reversibility | Irreversible or very costly to reverse | Easily reversible |
| Process | Full analysis, multiple perspectives, sleep on it | Decide fast, iterate, don't overthink |
| Who decides | Senior person or group | Individual closest to the information |
| Time budget | Hours to weeks | Minutes to hours |
| Examples | Acquisition, firing someone, pricing model, market entry | Feature priority, tool selection, meeting format, hiring channel |
The #1 mistake: Treating Type 2 decisions like Type 1. This creates organizational paralysis. Speed on Type 2 decisions is a competitive advantage.
Consequence Mapping
Before choosing a framework, map consequences:
decision: "[What you're deciding]"
type: 1 | 2
reversibility_cost: "$X / Y hours / Z reputation damage"
upside_if_right: "[Best realistic outcome]"
downside_if_wrong: "[Worst realistic outcome]"
time_to_know: "[When will you know if this was right?]"
asymmetry: "positive | negative | symmetric"
Phase 2: First Principles Thinking
Before reaching for frameworks, strip the problem to fundamentals.
The 5 Whys (Root Cause)
Don't solve symptoms. Ask "Why?" five times:
- Why are we losing customers? → They churn after month 3.
- Why month 3? → That's when the free premium features expire.
- Why do they leave when features expire? → They haven't built habits around core features.
- Why haven't they built habits? → Onboarding doesn't guide them to sticky features.
- Why doesn't onboarding cover this? → It focuses on setup, not value realization.
Root cause: Onboarding design, not pricing or product gaps.
Inversion (Jacobi Method)
Instead of "How do I succeed?", ask "How would I guarantee failure?"
Template:
Goal: [What you want to achieve]
How to guarantee failure:
1. [Anti-pattern 1]
2. [Anti-pattern 2]
3. [Anti-pattern 3]
4. [Anti-pattern 4]
5. [Anti-pattern 5]
Therefore, avoid:
1. [Inverted actionable rule]
2. [Inverted actionable rule]
3. [Inverted actionable rule]
Regret Minimization (Bezos)
For life-altering Type 1 decisions:
"Project yourself to age 80. Which choice minimizes regret?"
Use when:
- Career changes (leave job to start company?)
- Major financial commitments
- Relationship decisions
- The analytical frameworks feel inadequate because values are at stake
Phase 3: The Core Mental Models Catalog
3.1 — Strategy & Business
Porter's Five Forces (Industry Attractiveness)
Score each 1-5 (1 = favorable, 5 = threatening):
| Force | Score | Evidence |
|---|
| Threat of new entrants | _ /5 | Barriers to entry? Capital requirements? Network effects? |
| Supplier power | _ /5 | Few suppliers? Switching costs? Unique inputs? |
| Buyer power | _ /5 | Few buyers? Price sensitive? Easy to switch? |
| Threat of substitutes | _ /5 | Alternative solutions? Different categories solving same job? |
| Competitive rivalry | _ /5 | Many competitors? Slow growth? High fixed costs? |
| Industry Score | _ /25 | ≤10 = attractive, 11-17 = moderate, ≥18 = difficult |
Moat Assessment (Competitive Advantage)
Score each dimension 0-10:
| Moat Type | Score | Evidence | Durability (years) |
|---|
| Network effects | _ /10 | Each user makes product more valuable for others? | |
| Switching costs | _ /10 | Pain of leaving? Data lock-in? Learning curve? | |
| Brand | _ /10 | Premium pricing power? Trust? Recognition? | |
| Scale economies | _ /10 | Cost advantages that grow with size? | |
| Proprietary tech/data | _ /10 | Patents? Unique datasets? Trade secrets? | |
| Regulatory | _ /10 | Licenses? Compliance barriers? Government relationships? | |
| Distribution | _ /10 | Exclusive channels? Embedded in workflows? | |
| Counter-positioning | _ /10 | Incumbent can't copy without hurting their core business? | |
| Total Moat | _ /80 | ≥50 = fortress, 30-49 = solid, 15-29 = narrow, <15 = no moat | |
OODA Loop (Speed Advantage)
For competitive situations where speed matters:
- Observe: What's happening? Raw data, signals, changes.
- Orient: What does it mean? Context, mental models, cultural factors.
- Decide: What will we do? Select action from options.
- Act: Execute. Then observe again.
Key insight: The winner isn't who has the best strategy — it's who cycles through OODA faster. If you can observe and orient faster than competitors, you'll always be inside their decision loop.
Wardley Mapping (Strategic Positioning)
Map components by:
- Y-axis: Visibility to user (top = visible, bottom = invisible)
- X-axis: Evolution stage: Genesis → Custom → Product → Commodity
Rules:
- Build what's in Genesis/Custom (your differentiation)
- Buy what's in Product/Commodity (don't reinvent wheels)
- Watch for components about to shift stages (opportunity/threat)
3.2 — Investment & Financial
Expected Value Calculation
For any bet or investment:
EV = (Probability of Win × Win Amount) - (Probability of Loss × Loss Amount)
Example:
- 30% chance of winning $100,000
- 70% chance of losing $20,000
- EV = (0.30 × $100,000) - (0.70 × $20,000) = $30,000 - $14,000 = +$16,000
Decision: Positive EV → take the bet (if you can afford the loss)
Kelly Criterion (optimal bet sizing):
Kelly % = (bp - q) / b
Where:
b = odds received (win/loss ratio)
p = probability of winning
q = probability of losing (1 - p)
Example: 60% win rate, 2:1 payout
Kelly = (2 × 0.6 - 0.4) / 2 = 0.4 = 40%
Half-Kelly (safer): 20% of bankroll
Rule: Never bet full Kelly. Half-Kelly or quarter-Kelly in practice.
Margin of Safety (Graham/Buffett)
intrinsic_value: "$X (your best estimate)"
current_price: "$Y"
margin_of_safety: "(X - Y) / X × 100%"
Application beyond investing:
- Hiring: Can this person do 30% more than the role requires?
- Timelines: Add 50% buffer to estimates
- Revenue projections: Plan for 70% of optimistic scenario
- Server capacity: Provision 2x expected peak
Asymmetric Risk/Reward
The best decisions have capped downside and uncapped upside:
| Bet Type | Downside | Upside | Action |
|---|
| Asymmetric positive | Small, known loss | Large, open-ended gain | Take aggressively |
| Symmetric | Equal loss and gain | Equal loss and gain | Take only if +EV |
| Asymmetric negative | Large, open-ended loss | Small, known gain | Avoid or hedge |
Examples of asymmetric positive bets:
- Angel investing ($5K loss max, 100x upside possible)
- Content creation (time investment, infinite distribution upside)
- Learning a skill (months invested, decades of returns)
- Cold outreach (rejection cost = 0, deal value = $$$)
3.3 — Product & Prioritization
ICE Scoring (Quick Prioritization)
| Initiative | Impact (1-10) | Confidence (1-10) | Ease (1-10) | ICE Score |
|---|
| Feature A | 8 | 7 | 5 | 280 |
| Feature B | 6 | 9 | 8 | 432 |
| Feature C | 9 | 4 | 3 | 108 |
Score = Impact × Confidence × Ease
Calibration:
- Impact: Revenue, retention, or growth effect
- Confidence: How sure are you about Impact? (data-backed = 8+, gut = 3-5)
- Ease: 10 = hours, 7 = days, 4 = weeks, 1 = months
Jobs To Be Done (JTBD)
Template:
When [situation/trigger],
I want to [motivation/job],
So I can [expected outcome].
Functional job: [What they're literally trying to do]
Emotional job: [How they want to feel]
Social job: [How they want to be perceived]
Insight: People don't buy products. They hire them to make progress. Understand the job, and the product/feature decisions become obvious.
Eisenhower Matrix (Time/Priority)
| Urgent | Not Urgent |
|---|
| Important | DO (crises, deadlines) | SCHEDULE (strategy, relationships, health) |
| Not Important | DELEGATE (interruptions, some emails) | ELIMINATE (busywork, most meetings) |
Key insight: Most people spend 80% of time in Urgent (both quadrants). Winners spend 80% in Important/Not Urgent (Q2) — that's where compounding happens.
3.4 — Risk & Uncertainty
Pre-Mortem (Klein)
Before committing to a plan:
"Imagine it's 6 months from now. This decision was a disaster. What went wrong?"
Template:
decision: "[What we're about to do]"
pre_mortem_failures:
- failure: "[What went wrong]"
probability: "high | medium | low"
severity: "catastrophic | major | minor"
prevention: "[What we'll do to prevent this]"
detection: "[How we'll know early if this is happening]"
Run with 3+ people independently, then combine. The exercise works because it gives permission to voice concerns that "positive thinking" culture suppresses.
Scenario Planning (Shell Method)
Don't predict the future. Prepare for multiple futures.
scenarios:
optimistic:
name: "[Descriptive name]"
assumptions: ["[Key assumption 1]", "[Key assumption 2]"]
probability: "X%"
our_response: "[Strategy if this happens]"
leading_indicators: ["[Signal 1]", "[Signal 2]"]
base_case:
name: "[Descriptive name]"
assumptions: ["[Key assumption 1]", "[Key assumption 2]"]
probability: "X%"
our_response: "[Strategy if this happens]"
leading_indicators: ["[Signal 1]", "[Signal 2]"]
pessimistic:
name: "[Descriptive name]"
assumptions: ["[Key assumption 1]", "[Key assumption 2]"]
probability: "X%"
our_response: "[Strategy if this happens]"
leading_indicators: ["[Signal 1]", "[Signal 2]"]
black_swan:
name: "[Descriptive name]"
assumptions: ["[Unlikely but catastrophic event]"]
probability: "<5%"
our_response: "[Survival plan]"
hedges: [, ]
Rule: If your plan only works in one scenario, it's not a plan — it's a prayer.
Antifragility Assessment (Taleb)
Score your system/business/portfolio:
| Dimension | Fragile (-2 to 0) | Robust (0) | Antifragile (0 to +2) |
|---|
| Revenue concentration | 1 client = 80% revenue | Diversified, equal | Gets stronger with market chaos |
| Operational dependencies | Single point of failure | Redundant | Failures trigger improvements |
| Financial structure | Leveraged, thin margins | Cash reserves, no debt | Optionality, cash to deploy in downturns |
| Knowledge/IP | Key-person dependent | Documented, distributed | Learning system that compounds |
| Market position | Commodity, price-taker | Differentiated | Benefits from competitor mistakes |
Total: ≥4 = antifragile, 0 = robust, ≤-4 = fragile (fix immediately)
3.5 — People & Organizational
Circle of Competence (Munger)
Before any decision in a domain:
Domain: [Area of decision]
Inside my circle:
- [What I genuinely understand from experience]
- [Where I have real data and pattern recognition]
- [Decisions I've made successfully before in this space]
Edge of my circle:
- [What I know I don't know]
- [Where I'd need expert input]
Outside my circle:
- [What I'm completely unfamiliar with]
- [Where I'd be guessing]
Decision: Am I inside my circle for THIS specific decision?
If no → find someone who is, or do the homework first.
Hanlon's Razor + Steel Man
Before reacting to someone's behavior or proposal:
- Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice what is adequately explained by incompetence" (or ignorance, busy-ness, different priorities)
- Steel Man: Before arguing against a position, articulate the STRONGEST version of it. If you can't steel-man it, you don't understand it enough to disagree.
Second-Order Thinking
Every decision has consequences (1st order). Those consequences have consequences (2nd order).
Template:
Decision: [What we're doing]
1st order effects (immediate):
- [Direct result 1]
- [Direct result 2]
2nd order effects (weeks/months later):
- [Consequence of result 1] → [Further consequence]
- [Consequence of result 2] → [Further consequence]
3rd order effects (months/years later):
- [Systemic change 1]
- [Systemic change 2]
Counter-intuitive insight: [What becomes clear only at 2nd/3rd order]
Classic examples:
- Lowering prices (1st: more customers → 2nd: competitors match → 3rd: margin compression industry-wide)
- Remote work (1st: flexibility → 2nd: global talent pool → 3rd: global competition for your job)
- Firing quickly (1st: team relief → 2nd: hiring bar rises → 3rd: culture of accountability)
3.6 — Negotiation & Persuasion
BATNA Analysis (Fisher/Ury)
Before any negotiation:
my_batna: "[Best Alternative To Negotiated Agreement — what I do if we don't agree]"
my_batna_value: "$X or equivalent"
their_batna: "[Their best alternative]"
their_batna_value: "$Y or equivalent"
zopa: "[Zone Of Possible Agreement: range between our walk-away points]"
my_reservation_price: "[Minimum I'd accept]"
my_aspiration: "[What I actually want]"
their_likely_reservation: "[Best guess at their minimum]"
power_assessment: "I have more power | balanced | they have more power"
Cialdini's 6 Principles (Influence Audit)
For any persuasion situation, check which levers apply:
| Principle | Application | Your Move |
|---|
| Reciprocity | Give first, then ask | [What value can you provide upfront?] |
| Commitment/Consistency | Get small yeses first | [What's the micro-commitment?] |
| Social proof | Others are doing it | [Who else has done this successfully?] |
| Authority | Expert endorsement | [What credentials or evidence establish authority?] |
| Liking | Build rapport first | [What genuine connection exists?] |
| Scarcity | Limited availability | [What's genuinely scarce — time, spots, pricing?] |
3.7 — Technical & Engineering
Build vs Buy Decision Matrix
| Criterion | Weight | Build | Buy |
|---|
| Core differentiator? | 5 | If yes: +5 | If no: +5 |
| Time to market | 4 | Score 1-5 | Score 1-5 |
| Long-term cost (3yr) | 4 | Score 1-5 | Score 1-5 |
| Customization needed | 3 | Score 1-5 | Score 1-5 |
| Team capability | 3 | Score 1-5 | Score 1-5 |
| Maintenance burden | 3 | Score 1-5 | Score 1-5 |
| Vendor risk | 2 | N/A (0) | Score 1-5 |
| Integration complexity | 2 | Score 1-5 | Score 1-5 |
Shortcut: If it's your core differentiator → build. If it's commodity → buy. Everything else → this matrix.
Reversibility-First Architecture
Design decisions by reversibility:
| Reversibility | Examples | Approach |
|---|
| Easy (hours) | Feature flags, config, UI copy | Just do it. Iterate. |
| Medium (days-weeks) | API design, database indexes, tool choices | Light analysis, time-box to 1 day |
| Hard (months) | Database engine, programming language, cloud provider | Full evaluation, prototype, team input |
| Permanent | Public API contracts, data deletion, legal agreements | Maximum rigor, external review, sleep on it |
Phase 4: Cognitive Bias Defense System
Biases are the #1 threat to decision quality. Active defense required.
| Bias | What It Does | Defense |
|---|
| Confirmation bias | Seek info that confirms what you already believe | Assign someone to argue the opposite. Search for "why [your thesis] is wrong" |
| Anchoring | First number you hear dominates your estimate | Generate your own estimate BEFORE looking at anyone else's |
| Sunk cost fallacy | Continue because you've already invested | Ask: "If I were starting fresh today, would I begin this?" |
| Survivorship bias | Study winners, ignore the dead | Ask: "How many tried this and failed? What did they have in common?" |
| Dunning-Kruger | Overconfidence in areas of low competence | Check: Am I inside my circle of competence? |
| Recency bias | Overweight recent events | Look at 5-10 year base rates, not last quarter |
| Status quo bias | Prefer current state even when suboptimal | Evaluate "do nothing" as an active choice with its own costs |
| Groupthink | Agree with the room to avoid conflict | Write opinions independently BEFORE discussing. Use anonymous voting. |
| Availability heuristic | Judge probability by how easily examples come to mind | Check actual data. Plane crashes feel common because they're memorable. |
| Loss aversion | Feel losses 2x more than equivalent gains | Reframe: "What do I gain by NOT doing this?" |
| Narrative fallacy | Construct stories to explain random events | Ask: "Is this a pattern or am I connecting random dots?" |
| Planning fallacy | Underestimate time/cost for tasks | Use reference class forecasting: how long did SIMILAR projects take others? |
Daily Bias Checklist (Before Major Decisions)
Phase 5: Decision-Making Under Uncertainty
Confidence Calibration
Before acting on any estimate:
| Your Confidence | What It Should Mean | Calibration Test |
|---|
| 50% | Coin flip — could go either way | Would you bet your own money at even odds? |
| 70% | More likely than not, but real chance of being wrong | Would you bet 2:1? |
| 90% | Very confident, would be surprised if wrong | Would you bet 9:1? |
| 95% | Extremely confident | Would you bet 19:1? |
| 99% | Near certain | Have you been wrong at "99% confidence" before? (You have.) |
Rule: Most people are overconfident. If you think you're 90% sure, you're probably 70% sure. Adjust down.
Information Value Assessment
Before spending time/money gathering more data:
Decision to make: [X]
Current best guess: [Y]
Current confidence: [Z%]
If I gather [this information]:
- Cost: [$X / Y hours]
- Would it change my decision? [yes / maybe / probably not]
- By how much would confidence increase? [+5% / +15% / +30%]
Value of information = (confidence gain × decision stakes) - gathering cost
Rule: Don't research a $1,000 decision for 40 hours. Match effort to stakes.
When to Decide (Timing Framework)
| Situation | Optimal Decision Time | Why |
|---|
| Information depreciates quickly | Immediately (minutes) | Waiting destroys the option |
| Easy to reverse | Quickly (hours) | Cost of being wrong < cost of delay |
| Moderate stakes, some data | 70% information rule | At 70% confidence, decide. Waiting for 95% means you're too late. |
| High stakes, irreversible | Take available time (days-weeks) | Use it all. Sleep on it. Get perspectives. |
| Emotional decision | Wait minimum 24 hours | Emotions are data, not directives. Let them settle. |
Phase 6: Group Decision-Making
Structured Disagreement Protocol
For team/partner decisions where people disagree:
- Independent write-up: Each person writes their recommendation and reasoning (5 min, no discussion)
- Share simultaneously: Everyone reveals at once (prevents anchoring)
- Steel man opposition: Each person must articulate the best version of the opposing view
- Identify cruxes: What's the ONE factual question where if resolved, you'd change your mind?
- Resolve or decide: If crux is resolvable → get the data. If not → whoever has the best BATNA decides, or the person closest to the information decides.
RACI for Decisions
| Role | Definition | Rule |
|---|
| R — Responsible | Does the analysis, prepares recommendation | Max 2 people |
| A — Accountable | Makes the final call | Exactly 1 person |
| C — Consulted | Provides input before decision | Keep small (3-5) |
| I — Informed | Told after decision is made | Everyone affected |
Common failure: No clear A. If two people think they're the decider, no decision gets made.
Phase 7: Compounding & Systems Thinking
Compounding Mental Model
Most people think linearly. Compounding is the most powerful force:
Linear: 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 4 (after 4 periods)
Compounding: 1 × 1.1 × 1.1 × 1.1 × 1.1 = 1.46 (after 4 periods)
But after 50 periods:
Linear: 50
Compounding: 117.39
Rule of 72: Years to double = 72 / growth rate%
- 10% growth → doubles in 7.2 years
- 20% growth → doubles in 3.6 years
- 1% daily improvement → 37x in one year
Application: Every decision should be evaluated for its compounding potential. A decision that creates a 1% improvement to a daily process is worth more than a one-time 50% improvement to an annual process.
Leverage Points (Meadows)
Where to intervene in a system, ranked by effectiveness:
- Paradigms (most powerful) — Change the mindset/goals of the system
- Goals — What the system is optimizing for
- Rules — Incentives, constraints, punishments
- Information flows — Who knows what, when
- Feedback loops — Speed and accuracy of response
- Structure — How components connect
- Parameters (least powerful) — Numbers, budgets, quotas
Insight: Most people intervene at #7 (adjust the budget). The highest-leverage interventions are at #1-3 (change what we're optimizing for).
Phase 8: Personal Decision-Making
The Energy Audit
Not all decisions need the same energy:
high_energy_decisions:
- Career changes
- Major financial commitments (>10% of net worth)
- Hiring/firing
- Market entry/exit
- Relationship commitments
medium_energy_decisions:
- Quarterly priorities
- Tool/vendor selection
- Pricing adjustments
- Content strategy
low_energy_decisions:
- What to eat, wear, read
- Meeting attendance
- Social media responses
- Routine purchases
rule: "Match decision energy to decision stakes. Most people overthink low-energy decisions and underthink high-energy ones."
Default Rules (Eliminate Decision Fatigue)
Create personal defaults so you don't waste energy:
defaults:
new_meeting_request: "Default NO unless clearly advances top 3 priorities"
price_negotiation: "Never discount more than 15% — offer value instead"
new_project: "Default NO unless it replaces something on current list"
email_response: "Batch 2x/day. Respond in ≤3 sentences or schedule a call"
investment: "Default index fund. Active only with genuine edge + margin of safety"
delegation: "If someone can do it 80% as well, delegate"
saying_yes: "If it's not a HELL YES, it's a no"
Phase 9: Decision Frameworks by Situation
Quick reference — which framework for which situation:
| Situation | Primary Framework | Supporting Model |
|---|
| Should we enter this market? | Porter's Five Forces + Moat Assessment | Scenario Planning |
| Should I take this job/opportunity? | Regret Minimization + Circle of Competence | Asymmetric Risk |
| Which feature to build next? | ICE Scoring + JTBD | 2nd Order Thinking |
| Should we invest/bet on X? | Expected Value + Margin of Safety | Pre-Mortem |
| How to price our product? | See afrexai-pricing-strategy | Competitive Positioning |
| Hiring decision? | See afrexai-interview-architect | Circle of Competence |
| How to negotiate this deal? | BATNA + Cialdini | See afrexai-negotiation-mastery |
| Build or buy this component? | Build vs Buy Matrix | Reversibility Assessment |
| Team disagrees on direction | Structured Disagreement Protocol | Pre-Mortem |
| I'm overwhelmed with options | Eisenhower Matrix + Default Rules | Energy Audit |
| Business feels fragile | Antifragility Assessment | Scenario Planning |
| Competitor making moves | OODA Loop + See afrexai-competitive-intel | Wardley Mapping |
| Something failed, now what? | 5 Whys + Inversion | Sunk Cost check |
| Big life decision | Regret Minimization + Second-Order | Sleep on it (24h rule) |
Phase 10: Decision Quality Rubric
Score any decision AFTER making it (or retrospectively):
| Dimension | Weight | Score (0-10) | Weighted |
|---|
| Problem definition clarity | 15% | _ | _ |
| Options explored (≥3, incl. "do nothing") | 15% | _ | _ |
| Evidence quality (data vs. gut) | 15% | _ | _ |
| Bias mitigation (actively countered?) | 15% | _ | _ |
| Stakeholder input (right people consulted?) | 10% | _ | _ |
| Second-order effects considered | 10% | _ | _ |
| Reversibility & downside mapped | 10% | _ | _ |
| Time-appropriate process | 10% | _ | _ |
| Total | 100% | | _ /100 |
≥80: Excellent process — outcome is in fortune's hands, not yours
60-79: Good — minor gaps but fundamentally sound
40-59: Mediocre — important dimensions skipped
≤39: Poor — outcome is a coin flip regardless of luck
Critical insight: Judge decisions by PROCESS quality, not outcomes. A good process can produce bad outcomes (variance). A bad process that produces good outcomes is dangerous — it teaches bad habits.
Phase 11: Decision Record Template
Document every significant decision:
decision_record:
id: "DR-[YYYY-MM-DD]-[number]"
date: "YYYY-MM-DD"
decision: "[One sentence — what we decided]"
type: "1 | 2"
context: "[Why this decision was needed now]"
options_considered:
- option: "[Option A]"
pros: ["...", "..."]
cons: ["...", "..."]
- option: "[Option B]"
pros: ["...", "..."]
cons: ["...", "..."]
- option: "Do nothing"
pros: ["...", "..."]
cons: ["...", "..."]
decision_rationale: "[Why we chose this option]"
frameworks_used: ["[Framework 1]", "[Framework 2]"]
key_assumptions: ["[Assumption 1]", "[Assumption 2]"]
risks_accepted: ["[Risk 1]", "[Risk 2]"]
success_criteria: "[How we'll know this was right]"
review_date:
[, ]
Phase 12: Advanced Patterns
Barbell Strategy (Taleb)
Combine extreme safety with extreme risk. Avoid the middle.
Portfolio: 85-90% ultra-safe (treasuries, cash, index) + 10-15% high-risk/high-reward (startups, crypto, moonshots)
Time: 80% predictable deep work + 20% wild exploration/experimentation
Products: Cash cow product (boring, reliable) + speculative bets (innovative, might fail)
Career: Stable income source + asymmetric side projects
Why no middle: The "medium risk" zone gives you medium returns with hidden tail risk. Better to KNOW you're safe on one side and gambling on the other.
Lindy Effect
The longer something has survived, the longer it will likely survive.
Applications:
- Books: A 100-year-old book is more likely relevant in 10 years than a 1-year-old book
- Technologies: SQL (50 years) will outlast this year's hot framework
- Business models: Subscription model (centuries old as concept) > novel monetization
- Advice: Wisdom from 2,000 years ago (Stoics, Sun Tzu) > last week's Twitter thread
Via Negativa (Subtract, Don't Add)
Often the best decision is what to REMOVE, not what to add:
- Remove a feature (focus)
- Remove a meeting (time)
- Remove a client (sanity, team morale)
- Remove a goal (clarity)
- Remove a bad habit (energy)
- Remove complexity (reliability)
Template: "What's the ONE thing I could eliminate that would improve everything else?"
Opportunity Cost Consciousness
Every yes is a no to something else:
If I do X:
- Direct benefit: [value gained]
- Time cost: [hours/days/weeks]
- Best alternative use of that time: [what I'm saying no to]
- Opportunity cost: [value of best alternative forgone]
Net value = Direct benefit - Opportunity cost
If net value is negative, you're destroying value by saying yes — even though it "feels productive."
10 Decision-Making Commandments
- Classify before analyzing. Type 1 or Type 2? Match process to stakes.
- "Do nothing" is always an option. Evaluate it explicitly.
- Seek disconfirming evidence. The moment you like an idea, hunt for why it's wrong.
- Separate process from outcome. Good process, bad outcome = fine. Bad process, good outcome = lucky.
- Time-box decisions. Set a deadline. Perfectionism is a form of procrastination.
- Write it down. Unwritten decisions can't be reviewed, learned from, or challenged.
- One decider. Every decision needs exactly one person who makes the final call.
- Sleep on Type 1 decisions. Your brain processes during sleep. Use it.
- Review decisions. Quarterly, look at your decision records. What patterns emerge?
- Compound decision quality. Each good decision process makes the next one better. This is the real edge.
10 Common Decision Mistakes
| # | Mistake | Fix |
|---|
| 1 | Deciding too slowly on Type 2 decisions | Set a timer. If reversible, decide now. |
| 2 | Never writing down assumptions | Every decision has assumptions. Write them. Test them. |
| 3 | Asking for consensus instead of input | Consensus = lowest common denominator. Get input, then one person decides. |
| 4 | Optimizing for one variable | Life is multi-variable. Use weighted scoring. |
| 5 | Ignoring opportunity cost | "This is good" isn't enough. "This is better than alternatives" is the bar. |
| 6 | Deciding when emotional | 24-hour rule for anything you'd regret. |
| 7 | Copying without context | "Amazon does X" means nothing if you're not Amazon. Understand WHY they do X. |
| 8 | Analysis paralysis on small decisions | Automate (defaults) or delegate anything under $500/2 hours. |
| 9 | Never reviewing past decisions | Same mistakes on repeat. Quarterly decision reviews = compounding improvement. |
| 10 | Conflating confidence with competence | Loud ≠ right. Data ≠ understanding. Check circle of competence. |
Natural Language Commands
- "Help me decide [X]" → Full decision walkthrough (Quick Start)
- "Score this decision" → Decision Quality Rubric (Phase 10)
- "Pre-mortem [plan]" → Pre-mortem exercise (Phase 4)
- "Is this inside my circle?" → Circle of Competence check
- "Bias check" → Daily Bias Checklist
- "Expected value of [bet]" → EV calculation
- "Map the second-order effects" → Second-order thinking template
- "BATNA analysis for [negotiation]" → Full BATNA template
- "Rate this market" → Porter's Five Forces scoring
- "How strong is the moat?" → Moat Assessment
- "Which framework should I use?" → Phase 9 situation lookup
- "Write a decision record" → DR template (Phase 11)
