Learn
How to argue against your own plan on purpose
Adversarial reasoning is the practice of assigning someone to argue against a claim or a plan, as hard and as fairly as they can, before the plan meets the world. It turns objection from a personality trait into a job, so the objection gets made whether or not anyone in the room feels brave.
An old idea with a long record
In 1587 the Catholic Church created the office of the Promoter of the Faith, whose duty was to argue against each candidate for sainthood. Military planners later formalized the same habit in war games, where a red team plays the opponent. Security teams now pay people to break into their own systems before someone else does.
Each version rests on one observation: the people who built a plan are the least able to find its flaws, because they know what they meant.
Running an adversarial review
Write the plan as three to five claims it depends on, each a single sentence that could be false. Give one person, or a small group, the task of defeating those claims with evidence rather than opinion. Give the plan's owner a fixed time to answer each attack in writing. Then mark the result: which claims held, which were weakened, and which fell.
The review is finished when every claim has an answer, not when the meeting runs out of time.
Choosing who attacks
Independence matters more than talent. A critic who reports to the plan's sponsor, or who will be rewarded if it goes ahead, softens the attack without meaning to. Choose someone with nothing to lose if the plan fails, and protect them from the cost of being right.
The common mistake
Running the attack as a performance. A general warning about overconfidence changes nothing, because nobody can act on it. A useful attack names a specific claim, says what evidence would defeat it, and then goes and looks for that evidence.
How the Decision Room argues it
In Argumont, the Challenger attacks the weakest reasoning behind each option, the Gray Wolf hunts hidden weaknesses, and the Contrarian presses on whatever the room has agreed too easily. The Red Teamer runs stress scenarios that could break the plan outright, and the Judge records which claims survived.
After the Verdict, Challenge the Verdict runs an independent second pass that begins by assuming the first was wrong, and it can overturn it. The Human Decision still rests with the person who owns the choice.
The price rise under attack
A subscription firm plans to raise its price from $49 to $59 a month, resting on the claim that no more than 5 percent of its 4,000 customers will leave. Revenue today is 4,000 × $49, or $196,000 a month. At a 5 percent loss, 3,800 customers paying $59 bring in $224,200. The critic attacks the 5 percent, noting that the last price change, a smaller one, cost 7 percent. At 7 percent, 3,720 customers bring in $219,480, still ahead. The plan breaks only past a loss of about 17 percent, where 3,322 customers at $59 bring in the same $196,000. The attack did not defeat the plan. It showed exactly how much room the plan has, which is the more valuable finding.
Questions
- Is adversarial reasoning the same as being negative?
- No. Negativity objects to everything. Adversarial reasoning objects to specific claims, with evidence, and accepts the claims that survive.
- How often should a plan be attacked?
- Once, seriously, before commitment, and again whenever a key assumption changes. Attacking settled questions over and over wastes the attention a team needs for the open ones.
Bring Argumont a Decision worth challenging.
Start with a paid 60 day pilot on your own real Decisions.