Features
Compare options with weights you can see
When two or more serious options are already on the table, the danger is rarely a shortage of information. It is a comparison quietly tilted: weights adjusted after the favorite is known, a cell that hides a guess, a figure nobody checked. Compare Options keeps the weighing in the open, so you can see exactly why one option leads.
Set the weights before the scores
The order matters. If you score options first and choose weights afterward, it is easy, and usually unconscious, to pick the weights that crown the option you already preferred. In a Decision Room the criteria carry weights that total 100, and they are set before any option is scored.
Choose a handful of criteria that genuinely separate the options. A criterion on which every option scores the same adds work and no information.
Every score has a reason and a standing
A score is only as good as the claim behind it. A security rating resting on the vendor's own questionnaire is weaker than one resting on an independent audit, even when both give the same number. Inspector marks each claim supported, partly supported, unverified, or contradicted, so you can see which scores stand on solid ground and which on hope.
The engine works the weighted totals exactly, from your own figures. You can follow any total back to the scores and weights that produced it.
Each option gets its own advocate
Each option has its own Champion making its strongest case, so the favorite never writes the only argument. The Challenger attacks the weakest reasoning in whichever option is leading. The Strategist checks whether a materially different path would beat them all, which sometimes happens when two options each solve half the problem.
A Verdict that shows its hinges
The Judge issues a Verdict naming the option that leads, what it rests on, what remains uncertain, and the conditions that would change it. When the totals are close and the evidence thin, it can say No Strong Winner Yet. Confidence describes the strength of the record, not a probability that the leader is right, and your Human Decision is recorded on its own line.
Two vendors and staying put
The weights: cost 30, fit 25, security 20, time to value 15, ease of exit 10. Vendor A scores 6, 8, 7, 7 and 5, a weighted total of 6.75. Vendor B scores 8, 6, 5, 8 and 7, a total of 6.80. Staying with the current system scores 5, 3, 8, 10 and 10, a total of 6.35. B leads by five hundredths of a point, and its security score rests on its own questionnaire, which Inspector marks unverified. If an independent review lowered that score by a single point, B would fall to 6.60 and A would lead. The Verdict says exactly that, and advises the security review before anyone signs.
Questions
- What if I only have one plan?
- Then start by challenging that plan. The room looks for a materially different path, which gives you something real to compare against.
- What happens when evidence is missing?
- The claim is marked unverified and the Verdict's confidence reflects the gap. The missing fact is named, so you know what to check before you commit.
- Can a Verdict be wrong?
- Yes, which is why Challenge the Verdict exists. It runs an independent second pass on the same question and can overturn the first.
Bring Argumont a Decision worth challenging.
Start with a paid 60 day pilot on your own real Decisions.