Use cases
Research first, then evaluate
Some decisions are short of facts long before they are short of opinions. This workflow begins with research aimed at the claims that could change the choice, records where each finding came from, and only then lets the options argue on the record.
Research that serves a decision
Research for a decision differs from research for a report. A report tries to cover its subject, while a decision needs only the facts that could change which option wins. Before looking anything up, ask of each open question whether any plausible answer would alter the choice, and set it aside if none would.
Separate what can be researched from what only you know. Local rules, public prices, traffic counts, and published terms can be found. Your own costs, your team's capacity, and your appetite for risk cannot, and they belong in the record as your figures, clearly labeled as such.
Weighing what you find
Sources differ in standing. Original documents, such as statutes, official statistics, and a company's own published terms, carry more weight than reporting about them, and reporting carries more weight than opinion. A finding without a date can be dangerously stale, especially for prices and regulations.
Stop when the next fact could no longer change the ranking. Research past that point feels diligent, but it only delays the decision.
How the room researches
Scout investigates the facts the decision depends on from public sources, and each finding keeps its source. Inspector checks what the evidence actually proves and marks each claim as supported, partly supported, unverified, or contradicted, so a claim nobody could confirm stays visibly weaker than one that was confirmed.
Only then do the options argue. Each gets its own Champion, the Challenger presses on the claims research left thin, and the Strategist looks for a path the findings make possible. When too little survives, the Verdict can say No Strong Winner Yet and name the fact that would settle it, and the Human Decision is still yours to make.
A drive-through question
A cafe owner weighs adding a drive-through lane, quoted at $140,000, against a walk-up window at $25,000. Two researchable claims decide it. A public traffic count for the road shows about 18,000 vehicles a day, which supports the case for the lane. In this example, the city's zoning code requires a public hearing for a drive-through but only a standard permit for a window, and the hearing would push opening past the summer season the plan relied on. The owner's own figures, current sales and the building's layout, stay labeled as the owner's. The Verdict favors the walk-up window this year, with the lane revisited once a hearing date is set.
Questions
- What sources does the room use?
- Public sources it can name, together with the figures you provide. Each finding keeps its source, and your own figures stay labeled as yours.
- What if research finds nothing?
- The claim stays unverified and the Verdict says so. Knowing that a fact cannot be confirmed is useful, because it shows you where the risk sits.
- How much research is enough?
- Enough to settle the claims that could change the ranking. The room spends its effort on those claims rather than on a general survey of the subject.
Further reading
Bring Argumont a Decision worth challenging.
Start with a paid 60 day pilot on your own real Decisions.