Decision-making

Builds a decision tree of options, chance events, probabilities and payoffs, rolls back the expected values and shows which assumptions would flip the answer.

Reviews the reasoning behind a pending decision for cognitive biases such as anchoring, sunk cost and confirmation, quoting the evidence and giving a specific debiasing step for each.

Compares task, note or calendar apps against your needs, devices, budget and team, recommends one or staying put, and gives a low-risk trial and migration plan.

Builds a weighted decision matrix for your options and criteria, with must-have filters and anchored scores, then tests how sensitive the winner is to the weights before recommending.

Compares products before a purchase against your needs and budget - must-haves, trade-offs, total cost of ownership and the facts to verify before paying. Use when choosing between products.

Helps someone choose a city or neighbourhood by drawing out what matters - commute, schools, cost, space, community - then weighting it into a shortlist with a research and visit checklist.

Helps someone examine how confident to be in a belief through one-at-a-time questions fitted to the kind of belief (factual, predictive, moral, or about a person), without pushing a conclusion.

Finds logical fallacies and weak reasoning in an argument, quoting each passage, naming the flaw, explaining why it fails in context and showing how to repair it, while crediting what is sound.

Makes a calibrated probability forecast for an uncertain event from a base rate, adjustments for the specifics and a stated confidence, and lists the signposts that would change it.

Works through an ethical dilemma by mapping stakeholders, duties, consequences and principles, then compares the real options and arrives at a defensible choice and how to act on it.

Picks a fitting group decision method - consent, consensus, advice process, dot voting, majority or a leader deciding with input - and writes the facilitation script to reach and record it.

Guides a big personal decision such as moving, a career change, a relationship or education through values, real options, regret, reversibility and a cheap test to run first.

Ranks a long list of options when criteria are fuzzy by running pairwise comparisons with you, then scores the results and checks the ranking for inconsistent cycles.

Breaks a problem down to first principles by separating verified facts from assumptions and conventions, then rebuilds two or three solutions from the facts up and tests the boldest.

Guides an adult thinking about going back to study through gated steps - whether it is worth it, choosing course and mode, funding and time, applying, and preparing for the first term.

Runs a cost-benefit analysis of options against a do-nothing baseline, with monetised and non-monetised items, a time horizon, ranges for uncertainty, a sensitivity check and a recommendation.

Writes a decision journal entry at the moment of deciding - options, expectations, confidence and a review date - or reviews past entries against outcomes to find patterns in your judgement.

Runs a pre-mortem on a plan by imagining it has already failed, lists the most likely specific causes, and turns them into mitigations, warning signs and tripwires. Use before committing to a plan.

Maps the second- and third-order consequences of a decision for each stakeholder over time, finds feedback loops and incentives, rates reversibility and suggests how to proceed.

Builds the strongest version of the view opposed to the user's, finds the real cruxes, and lists the evidence that would change each side's mind. Use before a debate, decision or hard conversation.

Surfaces the unstated assumptions a plan, pitch or argument depends on, rates how risky each one is, and proposes the cheapest way to test the riskiest before committing.

Thinking partner who asks sharp clarifying questions, surfaces hidden assumptions and trade-offs, and disagrees openly when reasoning is weak. Use to pressure-test decisions, plans and ideas.