Prepare two or three real decision candidates.
Ask each owner to bring a short evidence brief. Include the problem, original source context, affected audience, and current uncertainty. Keep effort estimates distinct from the strength of the evidence.
Invite the people needed to make or inform the decision. Make the review’s authority explicit: is the group approving work, selecting discovery, or making a recommendation to another owner?
Use a focused 45-minute agenda.
Treat the timing as a facilitation aid. If a major uncertainty appears, record a follow-up rather than manufacturing confidence to finish the agenda.
| Time | Activity | Output |
|---|---|---|
| 0–5 min | State the decision and constraints | Shared review question |
| 5–17 min | Inspect the source evidence | Facts and limitations |
| 17–27 min | Compare alternative explanations | Open questions |
| 27–37 min | Discuss trade-offs and next actions | Proposed decision |
| 37–45 min | Name owners and revisit conditions | Decision record |
Ask questions that expose assumptions.
When a candidate feels obvious, slow down enough to inspect its strongest assumption. The goal is not to create endless debate. It is to identify the uncertainty that could materially change the decision.
- Which distinct sources support this problem?
- What would make us interpret the same evidence differently?
- Are we missing a role, segment, or workflow?
- Is the proposed action reversible?
- What will we observe before expanding the work?
Leave with a record that another team can read.
Write the chosen action, the decision owner, the supporting evidence, and the reason alternatives were deferred. Record unresolved questions explicitly rather than hiding them in meeting notes.
A decision to learn more is valid when it includes a bounded question and a next review. A decision to proceed should still name the signals that would justify reconsideration.
The deliverable is a defensible next step, not a perfect ranking of every idea.