# Blending RICE with Strategic Fit — Without Cooking the Books

Pure RICE optimises the measurable near-term; strategy sometimes demands the low-RICE bet (platform work, new-segment entry). The matrix approach scores both axes — but blending two scores is where motivated reasoning sneaks in. These are the guardrails.

## Keep the axes independent

Score RICE and strategic fit SEPARATELY, by different discussions (ideally different people scoring each pass). The corruption pattern: knowing an item's RICE is weak, scorers inflate its "strategic alignment" to rescue it. Independence is the defence — strategic fit is scored against WRITTEN strategy pillars before anyone sees the RICE column.

## Strategic fit needs anchors, not vibes

"Alignment: 4/5" means nothing without a rubric. Anchor each level: 5 = directly advances a named annual bet, would be funded even at RICE-mediocre · 3 = supports a pillar indirectly · 1 = orthogonal (fine! not everything is strategic) · 0 = actively contradicts a pillar (build nothing here regardless of RICE). Every 4-5 must cite WHICH pillar, quoted.

## Read the quadrants, don't average them

Collapsing to one weighted number hides exactly the tension the matrix exists to surface. Read as quadrants:
- **High-RICE + high-fit** — obvious yes; do first
- **High-RICE + low-fit** — the cash cows; do some, but notice if your whole roadmap lives here (strategy is decoration)
- **Low-RICE + high-fit** — the strategy tax; fund deliberately with a capped allocation (e.g. 20-30% of capacity) rather than pretending the RICE is better than it is
- **Low + low** — no, and say no out loud

## The allocation move

The mature output isn't a single ranked list — it's a capacity split ("70% to the high-RICE quadrants, 25% strategic tax, 5% wildcards") THEN ranking within each bucket. This makes the strategy investment explicit and budget-shaped instead of smuggled through inflated scores.

## Audit trail

Record both raw scores per item, the pillar citations, and any overrides. Next quarter, check: did the "strategic" bets get re-scored honestly, or does strategic fit mysteriously track whatever leadership last mentioned?
