Typical scorecard
A number is not a Decision if you cannot see what produced it.
compare
Not another table without a trail.
Named criteria and scores are the right skeleton. A cell still needs to say whether it is evidence or an assumption.
Not another table without a trail.
Typical decision matrix
- assigns numbers to cells
- leaves the source of each cell implicit
- rarely records evidence status
- treats the total as the decision
- has no independent review path
Argumont
- keeps claims attached to the score
- marks unverified assumptions
- exposes remaining uncertainty
- supports Challenge the Verdict
- can connect the Outcome later
The difference
Argumont uses decision-specific criteria. The surrounding record is what makes a score inspectable: claims, evidence, risks, and what would change the Verdict.
The Verdict is not the Decision
Argumont provides analytical judgment. You remain responsible for the final Decision.
Related pages
Typical pros and cons
A napkin list is a reasonable start. Equal bullets hide weighting, evidence quality, and what would reverse the call.
Versus a decision matrix
Weighted matrices are a classic operations tool. Argumont uses criteria and scores too. The difference is the surrounding record: claims, verification, risks, c...
Decision Scoring
Argumont creates decision-specific criteria and explicit weights rather than applying one generic scoring framework to every problem.
Decision matrix
A matrix is a table: options as rows, criteria as columns, weights on criteria, scores in cells. The math is simple. The honesty is not.
Compare
These pages compare Argumont with typical tools people already use. They describe the job, not invented competitor scores.
Start a Decision
Argumont challenges assumptions, researches evidence, compares competing approaches, and produces an inspectable verdict. You keep the final decision.
Start a Decision