Practical playbook · beginner · 15 minutes
Compare difficult options
Get the criteria, trade-offs and assumptions out into the open, and keep the final call with the person who has to live with it.
- This is for you when
- You have several believable options, priorities that pull against each other, and no single choice that is best for everyone.
- What you will leave with
- A side-by-side comparison, the strongest case against your front-runner, and sharper questions to answer before you commit.
The Human Partnership
Use the capability. Keep the part that needs a person.
AI can make trade offs visible, but a decision is not a table. The person must decide which criteria are real, which are gates, and which consequences they are willing to live with.
AI contribution
Choose a capability for a real job.
Each capability removes a different kind of effort. Its value depends on the human context beside it.
Criteria generation and structured comparison
AI can propose decision criteria, define a consistent comparison format and expose missing information before the team begins arguing from preferred answers.
- The person contributes
- The person removes irrelevant criteria, turns non negotiables into gates, and explains what success and failure mean in the actual operating context.
- Do not assume
- A balanced looking framework can give equal weight to issues that are not equally important or convert a value judgement into a misleading score.
Scenario and sensitivity analysis
Reasoning and code tools can test how the result changes when costs, demand, timing, staffing or criterion weights move rather than presenting one fixed ranking.
- The person contributes
- The person chooses plausible ranges, identifies dependencies the tool cannot see, and decides which scenarios deserve attention.
- Do not assume
- Sensitivity analysis only explores the assumptions entered. It does not discover political, behavioural or implementation risks that were never represented.
Counterargument and pre mortem
AI can make the strongest case against the leading option, imagine failure paths and produce questions for a pilot, supplier meeting or expert review.
- The person contributes
- The person judges which objections are credible, brings in stakeholders who will experience the change, and turns useful objections into tests.
- Do not assume
- A persuasive counter case may be rhetorically strong but factually weak, and repeated agreement from the same tool is not independent evidence.
Human expertise
The resources already inside the work.
Experience, relationships, definitions and accountability are inputs to the workflow, not a final check after AI has finished.
Values and priorities
You know which outcomes are essential, which trade offs are tolerable and where a numerical score would disguise a genuine principle or obligation.
Implementation reality
You know the staff capacity, technical debt, relationships, change fatigue and hidden work that determine whether a theoretically strong option will succeed.
Stakeholder consequence
You can identify who benefits, who carries the burden, whose voice is missing and which choice will require trust rather than simple compliance.
Shared workflow
See where the work changes hands.
The useful pattern is not one prompt followed by one check. The person and AI shape the work at different moments.
- 01 · person
Define the decision boundary
List the real options, non negotiables, constraints, affected people and what a bad outcome would look like before asking for a comparison.
- 02 · ai
Build a transparent comparison
Reasoning, comparison tables and scenario analysisPropose criteria, mark assumptions, identify missing evidence and compare each option through the same questions without declaring a winner.
- 03 · together
Stress the leading option
Change weights and assumptions, run a pre mortem, invite the strongest counter case and convert unresolved claims into questions or pilot tests.
- 04 · decision
Accept the trade off consciously
The accountable person or group chooses the option, states the trade off being accepted and records why the rejected options were not chosen.
- 05 · verification
Test before committing where possible
Verify factual claims, speak with affected people, obtain professional advice where required and use a bounded trial when uncertainty can be reduced through experience.
The decision stays human
Someone must be able to stand behind the result.
The person or authorised group owns the criteria, the weighting, the acceptable trade off and the final commitment. AI can improve the reasoning process but cannot supply organisational legitimacy or bear the outcome.
Verification required
- Verify every factual claim, price, legal requirement, capability and implementation assumption that changes the result.
- Distinguish hard gates from preferences and do not allow scoring to compensate for a failed non negotiable.
- Check who is affected but absent from the comparison and what operational work each option creates.
- Use a pilot, reference check or qualified adviser when the uncertainty is testable or the consequence is regulated.
Failure to watch
The main failure is outsourced judgement disguised as objectivity. A neat matrix can conceal arbitrary weights, missing stakeholders and assumptions that make the preferred option appear inevitable.
Skill strengthened
Structured decision making
Used well, the workflow strengthens your ability to define criteria, expose assumptions, test trade offs, listen to affected people and explain a decision without pretending uncertainty disappeared.
Worked example
Watch the judgement change the draft.
The first pass is useful. The human correction is what makes it specific, appropriate and worth using.
The honest starting point
Compare two booking systems for a five-person clinic. Non-negotiables: Australian support hours, exportable data and a simple patient experience.
A useful first pass
Comparison across support, data portability, patient workflow, setup effort and cost, with System A ahead on setup and System B ahead on export controls.
Context changes the answer
The clinic owner promotes data portability to a hard gate rather than a scoring line, deletes a support claim that could not be verified, and adds the staff training time nobody had counted.
The version a person can stand behind
A gated comparison that leaves one support question unresolved on purpose, plus a short pilot to run before any money changes hands.
Try it on your work
Start with the real material.
Remove anything you cannot share, fill in the brackets and keep the decision and verification steps visible.
- Do not use this in place of regulated professional advice on health, law, money or safety.
- Do not let a neat comparison table paper over facts that are missing or were never checked.
- Be wary if the tool keeps nudging toward the option you already hinted at, and do not treat a second tool agreeing as proof, since both may have learned the same received wisdom.
Help me think through this decision without choosing for me: [decision]. Options: [list]. My constraints: [list]. First propose a short set of decision criteria and ask me to correct them. Then compare the options, show the main trade-offs, mark unverified facts and make the strongest case against whichever option currently looks best.
Tools that can support this
Pick the tool after the job is clear.
These are evidence backed starting points, not universal winners. Open a guide or ask Bit to help you weigh the fit.
Its reviewed task guidance covers building criteria, weighing trade-offs and arguing the counter-case for a bounded decision.
inferred · moderate confidenceSee why it may fit →ClaudeIts reviewed guide suits close reading and sustained reasoning over a single decision you can define clearly.
inferred · moderate confidenceSee why it may fit →Reviewed guidance
Where this came from
- Reviewed
- Review by
- Owner
- The Human Bit editorial
One quick check