SynthworxGet the bundle
All open work
BUILD 02 / Decision Brief Studio

A vendor comparison shows where the recommendation can break.

A synthetic three-option reporting-platform choice is scored on workflow fit, three-year cost, data control, and time to usable. The example intentionally includes one low-confidence migration estimate so the recommendation cannot pretend every input is equally strong.

Demonstration with fictional vendors and synthetic evidence. The method is real; the product claims and recommendation are not market facts.
01 / INPUT CONTRACT

Reporting-platform decision

3 options · 4 weighted criteria · 3 evidence records

  • the team has three operators
  • data export is mandatory
  • the current process consumes two days monthly
  • the decision is due within four weeks
02 / METHOD
01

Define a finish line

The decision statement names the date, constraints, and the work the selected option must support.

02

Write criterion definitions

Each score is anchored to a stated dimension instead of being a free-floating preference.

03

Record evidence confidence

Official documentation, a direct test, and an internal estimate do not receive the same confidence treatment.

04

Stress the ranking

The recommendation is reviewed for weight sensitivity and low-confidence dependencies before approval.

03 / OBSERVED OUTPUT
3.61

top adjusted score

The leading option combines a high raw score with stronger evidence confidence.

100%

weight visibility

Every point in the scoring rule is named and can be challenged.

1

weak assumption

The migration-time estimate needs a direct test before it supports a final choice.

4

exports

Brief, score matrix, evidence register, and reopenable project record.

DECISIONS FROM THE BUILD
  1. Keep the current leader as the provisional recommendation.
  2. Run a two-hour migration spike before approval.
  3. Reverse the choice if data export fails the representative-file test.
  4. Record the approval owner and review the decision after the first monthly cycle.
04 / OPEN ARTIFACTS

Download and inspect the files.

No email gate. No screenshot standing in for an output.

Markdown

Completed decision brief

Context, recommendation, score table, evidence, risks, and next actions.

CSV

Score matrix

The weighted comparison in a portable, inspectable format.

CSV

Evidence register

Claims separated from sources, dates, confidence, and relevance.

05 / RELEASE CHECK

What had to be true.

  • Weights total 100%
  • Every criterion has a definition
  • Low-confidence claims are visible
  • Recommendation is tied to the declared rule
TRY THE PUBLIC EDITION

Run the method on your own input.

Open the free tool See the complete paid edition