tradeoff-analysis

Tradeoff Analysis

Purpose

Make a recommendation defensible by comparing real alternatives against stated criteria instead of asserting a single option.

When to use it

• Whenever a specialist or the chair must choose between approaches.
• Before recommending any non-trivial design or product direction.

Instructions

1. State the decision and the criteria up front (e.g., correctness, user value, complexity, risk, reversibility, effort, performance). Note relative weight.
2. Identify at least two viable options, including a "do less / reuse / defer" option. Avoid strawmen.
3. Score each option against each criterion, citing evidence for the score.
4. Make the reversibility of each option explicit; prefer reversible options under uncertainty.
5. State the recommendation, the margin by which it wins, and what evidence would change it.

Output format

A comparison: criteria (with weights), options, a per-criterion assessment with citations, the recommendation with its winning margin, and the conditions that would flip the decision.

Anti-patterns

• Presenting one option as if no alternative exists.
• Strawman alternatives that exist only to be rejected.
• Hiding the criteria, or changing them to fit a preferred answer.
• Ignoring reversibility and effort.

Verification checklist

• Criteria are stated before options are scored.
• At least two genuine options are compared with evidence.
• Reversibility and effort are considered.
• The conditions that would change the conclusion are stated.

Apply context-discovery before broad scanning: use a supplied context capsule first; otherwise check context frontmatter freshness, read .agent/context/routing.md, load only relevant summaries, and verify critical claims against source.