Follow the discussion. Test the reasoning.

Open your decision and check that its question and options match what you intend to compare. Read the original question when a shortened title leaves out context. If a budget, deadline, location, or requirement is missing, add that information before relying on the analysis.

For example, comparing two vendors requires the same scope for both: the work you need done, the expected volume, the implementation window, and the constraints each must meet.

AI participants examine competing options and challenge the reasoning. Follow the specific claim being discussed and the evidence offered for it. A confident tone, repeated statement, or agreement between participants does not establish that a claim is correct.

When a reply changes position, look for the new information that explains the change. Keep unresolved disagreements in view when you review the conclusion.

Use the conversation field to ask a question or correct a factual assumption. Name the claim and explain what needs checking. A useful challenge might be: Does this cost comparison include migration and ongoing support for both vendors?

Add relevant facts with their source and date when available. Distinguish your requirement from an estimate. If further research or investigation requires credits, review the displayed cost before starting that action.

Use Evidence to inspect the supporting material and Verdict to review the recommendation, uncertainties, and conditions that could change it. If important context is wrong or new information changes the case, use Challenge the Verdict to revisit the conclusion.

The Human Decision remains separate from the AI recommendation. Open Passport when you need a consolidated record to review or export. Before acting, resolve the gaps that matter to your situation and record the course you actually choose.