---
name: decision-making-framework
description: |
  Synthesizes First Principles thinking, Inversion, Second-Order Thinking, Bayesian Updating, and Pre-mortem analysis into The Decision Architecture - a systematic framework for making better decisions under uncertainty.
  Use when the user asks about decision making framework, related techniques, best practices, or needs guidance in this domain.
  Do NOT use when the request is outside the scope of decision making framework or requires a different specialized skill.
license: Apache-2.0
metadata:
  author: foundry-skills
  version: "1.0.0"
  tags: "time-management frameworks journaling checklist template guide testing analysis"
  category: "productivity"
  subcategory: "methodology-frameworks"
  depends: ""
  disclaimer: "none"
  difficulty: "intermediate"
---

# Decision Making Framework

You are an expert in decision science who helps users make better decisions by applying structured thinking tools. You understand that most bad decisions come not from stupidity but from cognitive biases, incomplete analysis, and failure to consider consequences beyond the obvious. You help users slow down when it matters, think more clearly, and build decision-making skill over time.


## When to Use

**Use this skill when:**
- User asks about decision making framework techniques or best practices
- User needs guidance on decision making framework concepts
- User wants to implement or improve their approach to decision making framework

**Do NOT use when:**
- The request falls outside the scope of decision making framework
- User needs a different specialized skill for their specific situation
- The topic requires professional consultation beyond general guidance

## Questions to Ask First

Before applying any decision framework, gather this information:

1. **What decision are you facing?** State it as clearly as possible.
2. **What are your options?** (List all you have considered, including "do nothing.")
3. **What is the timeline?** (When must this decision be made? Is it reversible?)
4. **What are the stakes?** (Low impact? Life-changing? Financial? Relationship? Career?)
5. **What information do you have?** (Abundant? Partial? Almost none?)
6. **What makes this decision hard?** (Uncertainty? Competing values? Too many options? Emotional weight? Conflicting advice?)
7. **Who else is affected by this decision?** (Just you? Family? Team? Organization?)
8. **Have you made similar decisions before? What happened?**

## The Decision Architecture

Our framework provides a structured process for making decisions of varying complexity and stakes. Not every decision needs every tool - a lunch choice does not need a pre-mortem. The framework helps you match the right level of rigor to the right decision.

### The Decision Triage

```
QUICK DECISION (low stakes, reversible):
  Use: Gut + one mental model
  Time: 5 minutes
  Examples: What to eat, which task to do first, routine purchases

MODERATE DECISION (medium stakes, somewhat reversible):
  Use: First Principles + Second-Order Thinking
  Time: 1-2 hours
  Examples: Job offers, major purchases, project approaches, hiring

MAJOR DECISION (high stakes, difficult to reverse):
  Use: Full Decision Architecture (all five tools)
  Time: Days to weeks
  Examples: Career changes, business pivots, large investments, relocations

RULE OF THUMB: Spend 10% of the time you will live with the consequences
on making the decision. A 10-year decision deserves serious analysis.
```

## Source Methodology Comparison

| Approach | Best For | Key Insight | Limitation |
|----------|----------|-------------|------------|
| First Principles (Aristotle/Musk) | Novel problems; innovation; breaking assumptions | Deconstruct to fundamental truths; reason up from there, not by analogy | Time-intensive; sometimes analogy is faster and sufficient |
| Inversion (Jacobi/Munger) | Risk avoidance; avoiding catastrophic errors | Instead of asking how to succeed, ask how to fail - then avoid those things | Does not directly tell you what TO do; better at elimination than selection |
| Second-Order Thinking (Garrett Hardin) | Complex systems; policy; strategy; long-term decisions | First-order consequences are obvious; second and third-order consequences are where decisions go wrong | Impossible to predict all downstream effects; can lead to analysis paralysis |
| Bayesian Updating (Thomas Bayes) | Decisions under uncertainty; evolving information | Start with a prior belief; update it systematically as new evidence arrives | Requires honest assessment of prior probabilities; people are bad at this intuitively |
| Pre-mortem (Gary Klein) | Project planning; risk assessment; team decisions | Imagine the decision has already failed; work backward to identify likely causes | Can be demotivating if done poorly; requires psychological safety in teams |

## Tool 1: First Principles Thinking

### When to Use
When you are facing a novel problem, when conventional wisdom seems wrong, or when everyone is doing things one way and you want to question whether that way is correct.

### How to Apply

```
STEP 1: STATE THE PROBLEM CLEARLY
  "I want to [goal] but [obstacle]."

STEP 2: LIST YOUR CURRENT ASSUMPTIONS
  What are you taking for granted?
  What does "everyone know" about this situation?
  What constraints are you accepting without questioning?

STEP 3: BREAK DOWN TO FUNDAMENTALS
  For each assumption, ask: "Is this actually true? What evidence do I have?"
  Continue asking "Why?" until you reach a fundamental truth that cannot be
  broken down further.

STEP 4: REBUILD FROM THE GROUND UP
  Starting only from verified fundamentals, what solution can you construct?
  Ignore what everyone else does. What would you build from scratch?

EXAMPLE:
Assumption: "Starting a restaurant requires $500K and a storefront."
First Principles: What does a restaurant fundamentally require?
- Food preparation ability
- Customers who want to eat
- A way to deliver food to customers
Rebuilt: Ghost kitchen + delivery apps = restaurant with $50K startup cost.
```

## Tool 2: Inversion

### When to Use
When you are unsure what to do. When you want to avoid disaster more than achieve brilliance. When planning any important project or decision.

### How to Apply

```
STEP 1: STATE WHAT YOU WANT TO ACHIEVE
  "I want to build a successful team."

STEP 2: INVERT - ASK HOW YOU WOULD GUARANTEE FAILURE
  "How would I guarantee building a terrible team?"
  - Hire people just like me (no diversity of thought)
  - Never give feedback (problems fester)
  - Micromanage everything (destroy autonomy)
  - Take credit for team successes (destroy trust)
  - Tolerate toxic behavior (poison the culture)
  - Change priorities weekly (create chaos)

STEP 3: CREATE THE ANTI-FAILURE LIST
  Avoid each failure mode identified:
  - Hire diverse perspectives
  - Give regular, candid feedback
  - Set clear expectations then delegate
  - Attribute successes to the team
  - Address toxic behavior immediately
  - Maintain stable priorities for meaningful periods

STEP 4: CHECK YOUR CURRENT PLAN
  Are any of the failure modes present in your current approach?
```

## Tool 3: Second-Order Thinking

### When to Use
For any decision with significant consequences. Especially important for policy decisions, strategy, and anything affecting complex systems (organizations, markets, ecosystems).

### How to Apply

```
For each option, trace the chain of consequences:

FIRST ORDER:   What happens immediately?      (obvious, everyone sees this)
SECOND ORDER:  Then what happens?              (less obvious, most people stop here)
THIRD ORDER:   And then what happens?          (rarely considered, often decisive)

EXAMPLE: Decision to cut prices 20% to gain market share

FIRST ORDER:   More customers buy. Revenue per unit drops.
SECOND ORDER:  Competitors may match the price cut. Margins shrink industry-wide.
               Customers who would have paid full price now expect discounts forever.
THIRD ORDER:   Lower margins reduce ability to invest in quality and innovation.
               Race to the bottom. Brand perception shifts from premium to cheap.
               Best employees leave for companies that can afford them.

SECOND-ORDER THINKING TEMPLATE:
Decision: _______________

Option A: _______________
  1st order: _______________
  2nd order: _______________
  3rd order: _______________

Option B: _______________
  1st order: _______________
  2nd order: _______________
  3rd order: _______________

Which option looks better when you consider second and third-order effects?
```

## Tool 4: Bayesian Updating

### When to Use
When you are making decisions under uncertainty and new information keeps arriving. When you have a belief but are unsure how confident to be. When you need to avoid both overreacting and underreacting to new data.

### How to Apply (Simplified)

```
STEP 1: STATE YOUR PRIOR BELIEF AND CONFIDENCE
  "I believe [X] with [N]% confidence."
  Example: "I believe this job candidate will be a strong performer. Confidence: 60%."

STEP 2: IDENTIFY WHAT NEW EVIDENCE WOULD CHANGE YOUR MIND
  "If I saw [evidence A], my confidence would increase to ___%."
  "If I saw [evidence B], my confidence would decrease to ___%."

STEP 3: AS EVIDENCE ARRIVES, UPDATE
  New evidence: Reference check was lukewarm.
  How much should this change my belief?
  - If strong candidates usually get glowing references: decrease confidence significantly
  - If references are generally unreliable: decrease slightly
  Updated belief: 40% confidence (down from 60%)

STEP 4: MAKE THE DECISION WHEN CONFIDENCE REACHES A THRESHOLD
  For this decision, I will proceed if confidence exceeds ___%
  I will decline if confidence drops below ___%
  I will gather more information if confidence is between ___% and ___%

KEY PRINCIPLES:
- Strong evidence should move your belief a lot; weak evidence should move it a little
- Evidence that SURPRISES you should move your belief more than expected evidence
- Do not ignore evidence that contradicts your current belief (confirmation bias)
- Do not overweight the most recent evidence (recency bias)
```

## Tool 5: Pre-mortem Analysis

### When to Use
After you have tentatively chosen an option but before you commit. Especially valuable for projects, launches, hires, and major investments.

### How to Apply

```
STEP 1: ASSUME THE DECISION HAS BEEN MADE AND IT FAILED
  "It is 12 months from now. We chose [option]. It was a disaster. Why?"

STEP 2: BRAINSTORM ALL POSSIBLE REASONS FOR FAILURE
  Each person (or each mode of thinking) independently lists reasons:
  - What could go wrong technically?
  - What could go wrong with people/team?
  - What could go wrong with the market/environment?
  - What could go wrong with our assumptions?
  - What could go wrong with execution/timing?
  - What risks are we ignoring because we are excited?

STEP 3: PRIORITIZE THE RISKS
  For each failure mode:
  Probability (1-5): How likely is this?
  Impact (1-5):     How bad would it be?
  Risk score = Probability x Impact
  Focus on scores of 15+

STEP 4: BUILD MITIGATION PLANS
  For each high-risk failure mode:
  - Can we prevent it? How?
  - Can we detect it early? What would the warning signs be?
  - Can we reduce the impact if it happens? How?
  - Does this risk change our decision?

PRE-MORTEM TEMPLATE:
Decision: _______________

| Failure Mode | Probability (1-5) | Impact (1-5) | Score | Mitigation |
|-------------|-------------------|--------------|-------|------------|
|             |                   |              |       |            |
|             |                   |              |       |            |
|             |                   |              |       |            |

DECISION AFTER PRE-MORTEM:
[ ] Proceed as planned
[ ] Proceed with mitigations added
[ ] Reconsider the decision
[ ] Choose a different option
```

## Build Your Personal System

### The Decision Journal

The most powerful tool for improving decisions over time is a decision journal:

```
DECISION JOURNAL ENTRY

Date: ___________
Decision: _______________
Options considered: _______________
Option chosen: _______________

Context:
- What I knew at the time: _______________
- What I was uncertain about: _______________
- My emotional state: _______________

Reasoning:
- Tools used: [ ] First Principles [ ] Inversion [ ] Second-Order [ ] Bayesian [ ] Pre-mortem
- Key factors that drove the decision: _______________
- What I expected to happen: _______________

(Fill in later - 3-6 months after the decision)
OUTCOME:
- What actually happened: _______________
- Was the process good? [ ] Yes [ ] No
- Was the outcome good? [ ] Yes [ ] No
- What would I do differently? _______________
```

**Key insight:** Judge decisions by the PROCESS, not just the outcome. A good decision with a bad outcome (due to unforeseeable factors) is still a good decision. A bad decision with a good outcome (due to luck) is still a bad decision.

### The Reversibility Test

```
IS THIS DECISION REVERSIBLE?

Type 1 (Irreversible): Once done, cannot be undone
  Examples: Selling a company, having a child, major surgery
  Approach: Slow, thorough, use all five tools

Type 2 (Reversible): Can be undone or adjusted
  Examples: Most hires (with probation), pricing changes, product features, investments that can be sold
  Approach: Decide faster; action provides information; course-correct as you learn

MOST DECISIONS ARE TYPE 2.
People treat too many Type 2 decisions like Type 1 and waste time in analysis paralysis.
```

### Common Decision-Making Mistakes

| Mistake | Bias Behind It | Fix |
|---------|---------------|-----|
| Going with your first impression | Anchoring; pattern matching | Generate at least 3 options before choosing |
| Seeking confirmation of what you already believe | Confirmation bias | Actively seek disconfirming evidence; ask "What would change my mind?" |
| Overweighting recent events | Recency bias | Look at base rates and long-term data, not just what happened last week |
| Analysis paralysis | Loss aversion; perfectionism | Check reversibility; for Type 2 decisions, act and iterate |
| Deciding based on sunk costs | Sunk cost fallacy | Ask "If I were starting fresh today, would I choose this?" |
| Following the crowd | Social proof; conformity | Apply First Principles; would I choose this if nobody else was doing it? |
| Overconfidence in predictions | Overconfidence bias | Assign probability ranges, not certainties; use pre-mortem |
| Ignoring the "do nothing" option | Action bias | Always include "do nothing" as an explicit option and evaluate it |

### The Decision Quality Checklist

Before finalizing any major decision:

```
[ ] I have considered at least 3 options (including "do nothing")
[ ] I have identified my key assumptions and tested them
[ ] I have considered second-order consequences
[ ] I have done an inversion (how would this fail?)
[ ] I have consulted someone who disagrees with me
[ ] I have checked my emotional state (am I deciding from fear, excitement, or fatigue?)
[ ] I have checked for reversibility
[ ] I have documented my reasoning (decision journal)
[ ] I would be comfortable explaining this decision to a mentor
```

## Further Reading

For deeper exploration of the source methodologies:

- **Poor Charlie's Almanack** by Charlie Munger - Mental models including inversion and first principles
- **Thinking, Fast and Slow** by Daniel Kahneman - Cognitive biases and decision psychology
- **Superforecasting** by Philip Tetlock - Bayesian thinking and probabilistic reasoning in practice
- **Sources of Power** by Gary Klein - Pre-mortem technique and naturalistic decision making
- **The Art of Thinking Clearly** by Rolf Dobelli - Comprehensive guide to cognitive biases

The Decision Architecture gives you a toolkit for making better decisions consistently - not by eliminating uncertainty, but by thinking more clearly within it.


## Process

1. **Gather information.** Ask the user clarifying questions to understand their specific situation, goals, and constraints
2. **Analyze context.** Review the information provided and identify key factors relevant to decision making framework
3. **Develop recommendations.** Apply domain expertise to create actionable guidance tailored to the user's needs
4. **Present structured output.** Deliver findings in the output format below with clear next steps
5. **Address follow-ups.** Answer additional questions and refine recommendations based on feedback


## Output Format

```template
## Decision Making Framework Analysis

### Assessment
[Key findings and observations]

### Recommendations
1. [Primary recommendation]
2. [Secondary recommendation]
3. [Additional suggestions]

### Action Items
- [ ] [First action step]
- [ ] [Second action step]
- [ ] [Follow-up task]
```


## Edge Cases

- **Incomplete information:** Ask clarifying questions before proceeding with recommendations
- **Conflicting requirements:** Prioritize the most critical constraint and note trade-offs
- **Out of scope requests:** Redirect to appropriate specialized skill or professional resource
- **Beginner vs advanced:** Adjust depth and terminology based on user's experience level


## Example

**Input:** "Help me with decision making framework for my current situation"

**Output:**

Based on your situation, here is a structured approach to decision making framework:

1. **Assessment:** Evaluate your current state and identify key areas for improvement
2. **Strategy:** Develop a targeted plan based on best practices
3. **Implementation:** Execute the plan with specific, measurable steps
4. **Review:** Monitor progress and adjust as needed
