Decision Structure Diagnostic

Evaluate one specific decision action / decision communication. Step 1 identifies the decision type. Step 2 checks whether the logic being used matches the decision’s structure. Results are bounded by your inputs.

Decision Structure Diagnostic Report

—

Decision Context

Company name

Decision action / communication (short title)

Decision owner / sponsor (role/function)

Session date

One-sentence decision statement (recommended)

Why: this reduces scoring disagreements caused by people holding different “versions” of the decision in their head.

Scope boundary (what is explicitly in / out)

Facilitator (optional)

Attendees (optional)

Step 1 — Identify the Decision Type (Triad)

Choose the option that best matches the decision’s structure. The tool will show a plain-language “Because…” explanation after you run it.

Evidence basis (Step 1)

Confidence (Step 1)

External constraints: how binding are uncontrollable factors (regulatory, physical limits, supplier limits, market prices)?

Selected: Moderate

Not binding

External limits don’t constrain options

Low

Some constraints; many options

Moderate

Constraints shape tradeoffs

High

Most options eliminated

Very high

Reality largely determines feasible outcomes

Internal constraints / business rules: are they fixed for this decision, or up for redesign?

Selected: Mixed

Up for redesign

Rules are part of what’s being decided

Mostly negotiable

Rules likely change if needed

Mixed

Some fixed; some negotiable

Mostly fixed

Stable with exceptions

Fixed

Treated as non-negotiable

What is the decision really about?

Selected: Mixed

Choosing within rules

Selecting an option inside current constraints

Mostly choosing

Choosing, with minor rule adjustments possible

Mixed

Some choice + some rule adjustment

Mostly redesigning

Rules are the primary focus, with some constrained choices

Redesigning the rules

The “rules” are the main decision

Why: if the real decision is rule redesign, treating it like a “choose the right answer” decision often creates delays and rework.

Outcome predictability: if we act, how predictable are outcomes?

Selected: Moderate

Not predictable

Unknown drivers; outcomes vary widely

Low

Some patterns; high uncertainty

Moderate

Known drivers; outcomes still vary

Mostly predictable

Uncertainty exists but limited

Highly predictable

Outcomes are largely expected

Novel structure: does this create something new (roles, model, rules, category)?

Selected: Moderate

Choosing within existing structure

Minor

Small adjustments

Moderate

Meaningful change, still anchored

High

New design required

Very high

Creating a new model/category/ruleset

How is this decision currently being treated in the room? (self-report)

To make this less subjective, select observed behaviors below.

We keep asking for more data before we can decide.

Often aligns with deterministic framing (seeking certainty).

We are trying to get broad agreement to move forward.

Often aligns with probabilistic framing (averaging / consensus).

We are trying to design / prototype something new as part of deciding.

Often aligns with generative framing (authorship / creation).

A major blocker is “who has the right to decide.”

Often appears when deterministic decisions are over-deliberated.

Computed “treated as” (from behaviors)

Use for mismatch check

Step 2 — Execution Slowdown Risk (Decision Action Level)

These reflect what happens after the decision action is communicated.

Evidence basis (Step 2)

Confidence (Step 2)

Decision actions communicated per week (approx.)

Time from decision communication to execution start (days)

% of decision actions reversed after execution begins

Selected: 16–30%

0–5%

Rare reversals

6–15%

Occasional reversals

16–30%

Noticeable reversals

31–50%

Frequent reversals

51%+

Chronic reversals

Clarity of decision ownership (who decides / who is accountable)

Selected: Mixed

Unclear

Ownership disputed or shifting

Mostly unclear

Escalates due to ambiguity

Mixed

Clear sometimes; unclear in exceptions

Mostly clear

Clear owner in most cases

Clear

Owner + accountability explicit

Results

Inferred Decision Type

—

Because: —

Logic Currently Applied

—

Source: —

Misclassification Risk

—

Execution Slowdown Risk

—

Uses: start delay, reversals, ownership clarity, volume

Evidence Strength

—

Type-Specific Failure Prompts (Shown after classification)

Deterministic — what to check

Is the outcome determined by constraints/business rules, but still being debated?

Evidence examples: policy/business rule, compliance requirement, cost model, capacity limit.

Where does authority ambiguity show up (who has the right to decide)?

Evidence examples: escalation chain, approval logs, repeated “who owns this?” meetings.

What incentive conflict or fear is blocking the decision action?

Evidence examples: misaligned KPIs, risk penalties, reputational downside without protection.

Probabilistic — what to check

Where is the organization pretending certainty (single scenario) when only probability exists?

Evidence examples: one forecast number presented as “the plan,” no ranges, no scenarios.

How is dissent or variance being suppressed (explicitly or implicitly)?

Evidence examples: punished misses, “don’t be negative,” incentives to agree.

Where is consensus being used to avoid risk ownership?

Evidence examples: “we all agreed” used as shield; no named risk owner.

Generative — what to check

Where is premature evaluation happening before a structure/prototype exists?

Evidence examples: scoring proposals without prototypes, demands for certainty early.

What borrowed framework or benchmarking pressure is blocking authorship?

Evidence examples: “show me an example company,” “copy this framework” as gating.

Where is consensus being demanded when authorship is required?

Evidence examples: unanimity required to design; no named author accountable for creating.

Notes & Witness Capture

Observed evidence cited (documents, metrics, examples) Dissenting / minority views raised Facilitator / witness notes

90 Diagnostic Qualifier

Decision Structure Diagnostic

Decision Context

Step 1 — Identify the Decision Type (Triad)

Step 2 — Execution Slowdown Risk (Decision Action Level)

Results

Type-Specific Failure Prompts (Shown after classification)

Deterministic — what to check

Probabilistic — what to check

Generative — what to check

Notes & Witness Capture