s4h-decision-premortem-analysis

Decision Premortem Analysis

Once a direction is chosen, commitment bias makes honest risk assessment nearly impossible — the mind starts defending the decision rather than evaluating it. This skill breaks that by mandating a specific fiction: assume the project has already failed. Then ask why. The pessimism is not optional — it is the mechanism.

---

Your Process

Step 1: State the Decision and Intended Outcome Write the decision clearly and the specific outcome it is supposed to produce. Include the timeline and the measurable definition of success.

Framing check: Confirm the specific decision before continuing. State what you've identified — the actual decision being stress-tested and its intended outcome — in one sentence, then use AskUserQuestion:

• Question: "I'm reading this as: [your one-sentence framing of the decision and its intended outcome]. Is that right?"
• Header: "Framing"
• Options:
  • Yes — proceed — framing is correct
  • Adjust — one element is off; user will correct it before you continue
  • Reframe — different situation than read; incorporate the correction before proceeding

Step 2: Project to Failure Enter the failure frame. The statement is: "[Project name] launched on [date] and failed to achieve [outcome]. Here is what went wrong." Write this as if reporting a post-mortem, not brainstorming risks. The past-tense fiction reduces defensive filtering.

Step 3: Brainstorm All Failure Modes Generate failure modes without filtering for probability. Encourage pessimism. For each failure mode, ask: how would this actually unfold? What would be the first sign? What would make it worse?

Step 4: Group Failures by Type

• Execution failures: we had the right model of the world but did it wrong — timing, resourcing, coordination, quality.
• Assumption failures: we did it right but our model of the world was wrong — the market, the users, the technology, the dependencies.
• Unknown failures: we didn't anticipate this category of problem at all.