Every decision framework needs five explicit components: criteria, sequence, time budget, kill conditions, and decision rights

Why This Is a Rule

Most decision frameworks fail not because the criteria are wrong but because they're incomplete: they specify what to evaluate but not how to evaluate (sequence), how long to deliberate (time budget), what automatically disqualifies an option (kill conditions), or who has authority to decide (decision rights). These missing components produce predictable failures: evaluation biased by sequence effects (Score by criterion across options, not by option across criteria — column-first prevents halo effects from inflating favorites), analysis paralysis from open-ended deliberation (Classify every decision as one-way or two-way door before deliberating — minutes for reversible, days for irreversible), continued consideration of fundamentally unacceptable options, and unclear authority that produces group indecision.

The five components address five distinct failure modes: Evaluation criteria define what matters. Without them, evaluation is ad-hoc and inconsistent. Sequence of evaluation prevents order effects and halo bias (Assign criterion weights before scoring options — knowing scores first lets you unconsciously rig the weights, Score by criterion across options, not by option across criteria — column-first prevents halo effects from inflating favorites). Time budget prevents both premature decisions and analysis paralysis. Kill conditions are binary disqualifiers that eliminate options before scoring — "any option requiring relocation is automatically disqualified" saves evaluation effort on non-starters. Decision rights (from RACI frameworks) specify who decides and who is merely consulted, preventing the common failure where consensus-seeking paralyzes a group.

Each component is independently necessary. A framework missing any one will produce systematic errors in that dimension regardless of how well the other components are specified.

When This Fires

• When building any reusable decision framework for recurring decision types
• When reviewing an existing framework that produces inconsistent or unsatisfying results — check for missing components
• Before making any one-way door decision (Classify every decision as one-way or two-way door before deliberating — minutes for reversible, days for irreversible) that warrants structured deliberation
• When multiple stakeholders are involved in a decision and process clarity is essential

Common Failure Mode

Building frameworks with criteria only: "Here's what we evaluate hires on: technical skill, culture fit, growth potential." Without sequence (which dimension first?), time budget (how long per candidate?), kill conditions (any automatic disqualifiers?), and decision rights (does the team decide or the hiring manager?), the framework leaves more undefined than it specifies.

The Protocol

(1) When building a decision framework, include all five components explicitly: (2) Criteria: what dimensions will you evaluate? Aim for 4-7 — fewer risks missing important dimensions, more creates matrix overload. Weight each criterion (Assign criterion weights before scoring options — knowing scores first lets you unconsciously rig the weights). (3) Sequence: in what order will you evaluate? Criterion-first across options (Score by criterion across options, not by option across criteria — column-first prevents halo effects from inflating favorites) for matrix decisions; most-constraining-criterion-first for elimination decisions. (4) Time budget: how long will you deliberate? Set a hard deadline proportional to reversibility (Classify every decision as one-way or two-way door before deliberating — minutes for reversible, days for irreversible). (5) Kill conditions: what automatically disqualifies an option regardless of other scores? Define these before evaluating to prevent post-hoc rationalization. (6) Decision rights: who makes the final call? Who is consulted but doesn't decide? Ambiguity here kills more group decisions than any other factor.