Use cases
Compare options without a fake average
Comparisons fail when each option is described in its own language: one in savings, another in speed, a third in reputation. This workflow holds every option to the same criteria, weighted before scoring, so the comparison measures the options rather than the eloquence of whoever described them.
When it fits
Use it when the alternatives are already named: two vendors, two locations, two systems, two ways of running a service. The question is which is stronger on what matters, and whether either is strong enough yet. If you hold only a single favorite, challenging that idea is the better place to start.
Shared terms before scores
Every option is described against the same criteria over the same period, with money counted the same way. Limits that cannot be broken, such as a budget ceiling or a fixed date, are settled as pass or fail before scoring begins. The remaining criteria receive weights that total 100, fixed before any option is scored.
Each score carries the evidence behind it. A figure from a signed quote and a figure from a hopeful estimate can produce the same number in a spreadsheet; here they are marked differently, and the confidence of the Verdict reflects the difference.
How the room runs the comparison
Each option gets its own Champion, so the leading option never writes the only brief. The Challenger presses on the claims the front runner depends on, and the Strategist tests whether a sequence, a combination, or a third path beats the pair. The sums, including the break-even point between options, are worked exactly from your own figures.
The Judge scores what survived the argument. The Verdict states which option leads, what it rests on, what remains uncertain, and the figure that would reverse it. If a new constraint arrives, Challenge the Verdict runs an independent second pass, and the Human Decision is recorded separately.
When a simple table will do
For a choice that is small, cheap to reverse, and yours alone, a quick table on paper is enough. Bring the comparison to a room when the money is significant, the options pull hard in different directions, or someone will later ask why one was chosen.
Courier or own vans
A shop makes 1,200 deliveries a month. A courier charges $9.50 a delivery, or $11,400 a month. Running its own service would cost $17,700 a month for three leased vans, three drivers, fuel, and insurance, which is $14.75 a delivery at today's volume. The weights are set first: cost 35, reliability 25, customer experience 20, flexibility 20. The courier leads on cost and flexibility today, while the shop's own drivers score higher on customer experience. The break-even point is about 1,860 deliveries a month, which those three drivers could still handle. The Verdict favors the courier on a contract the shop can leave on 90 days' notice, and names its trigger: revisit when deliveries pass 1,700 a month for a full quarter.
Questions
- How many options can a room compare?
- Usually two to five. More than that tends to mean the real options have not yet been chosen, and a first pass to narrow the field is the better start.
- What if neither option is good enough?
- The Verdict can say so. No Strong Winner Yet is a legitimate result, and it comes with what would need to change for an option to clear the bar.
- Can I bring a spreadsheet I already have?
- Yes. Paste its criteria and figures with your question, and the room tests the weights, the evidence behind each cell, and whether an option is missing.
Further reading
Bring Argumont a Decision worth challenging.
Start with a paid 60 day pilot on your own real Decisions.