Classify decisions as speed-dominant or accuracy-dominant before analysis — 15 minutes for speed, structured process for accuracy

Why This Is a Rule

The speed-accuracy trade-off is fundamental to decision science, but most people apply the same process to all decisions regardless of where they fall on the spectrum. This produces two systematic errors: applying slow, careful analysis to speed-dominant decisions (wasting time and missing windows) and applying fast heuristics to accuracy-dominant decisions (insufficient analysis for irreversible consequences).

Three factors determine the classification: Reversibility (can you undo it?), cost of wrong (how bad is the worst outcome?), and cost of delay (what do you lose by waiting?). Speed-dominant decisions score high on reversibility, low on cost of wrong, and high on cost of delay — waiting is more expensive than choosing wrong. Accuracy-dominant decisions score low on reversibility, high on cost of wrong, and low on cost of delay — choosing wrong is more expensive than waiting.

The 15-minute budget for speed-dominant decisions isn't arbitrary — it's enough time to consider the top 2-3 options and make a directionally correct choice, which is all a reversible decision requires. Structured analysis for accuracy-dominant decisions means the full toolkit: decision matrix (Use a weighted decision matrix when options exceed 3 and criteria exceed 4 — working memory cannot hold all dimensions at once), pre-defined criteria (Every decision framework needs five explicit components: criteria, sequence, time budget, kill conditions, and decision rights), external review (After irreversible commitments, schedule external reviews with pre-defined criteria — escalation of commitment corrupts self-assessment).

When This Fires

• Before beginning analysis on any decision — this is the first classification step
• Extends Classify every decision as one-way or two-way door before deliberating — minutes for reversible, days for irreversible (one-way/two-way doors) with a more granular three-factor classification
• When a team is debating how much analysis a decision deserves — classify first, then calibrate process
• When decision velocity feels too slow or too fast — check if classification is happening

Common Failure Mode

Applying accuracy-dominant process to speed-dominant decisions because "this feels important." Emotional intensity isn't a classification factor — reversibility, cost of wrong, and cost of delay are. A decision can feel important (choosing a conference to attend) while being objectively speed-dominant (reversible, low cost of wrong, high cost of delay since early registration is cheaper).

The Protocol

(1) Before any analysis, score three factors: Reversibility: can I undo this within a week at reasonable cost? (high = speed-dominant) Cost of wrong: what's the worst realistic outcome if I choose poorly? (low = speed-dominant) Cost of delay: what do I lose by waiting another week to decide? (high = speed-dominant) (2) If 2-3 factors point speed-dominant → 15 minutes, bias toward action. Choose from available options with minimal analysis. (3) If 2-3 factors point accuracy-dominant → structured analysis. Deploy the full decision toolkit: framework (Every decision framework needs five explicit components: criteria, sequence, time budget, kill conditions, and decision rights), matrix if needed (Use a weighted decision matrix when options exceed 3 and criteria exceed 4 — working memory cannot hold all dimensions at once), appropriate time budget (Classify every decision as one-way or two-way door before deliberating — minutes for reversible, days for irreversible). (4) For mixed scores → default to speed-dominant with one guard: a quick check for any dealbreaker that would make the fast choice catastrophic. If no dealbreaker → proceed fast.