Decision Making
Decision Memo With Trade-offs
Write a one-page decision memo: options, criteria, recommendation, and what would change your mind.
The Prompt
decision-memo-with-trade-offs.md
Write a decision memo. Make the trade-offs visible. Decision: {{decision}} Context: {{context}} Options I see: {{options}} Constraints (time, money, people, risk): {{constraints}} Who decides: {{decider}} Memo: 1. Decision in one sentence 2. Criteria and weights (or equal weights if I did not specify) 3. Options table vs criteria 4. Recommendation and the strongest objection to it 5. What evidence would flip the call 6. First 72-hour steps if we go with the recommendation If a critical option is missing, add it and say why.
Negative prompt
Included when you copy the prompt
Do not hide trade-offs behind vague language like "strategic alignment" or "best practice." Do not invent budget figures, timelines, headcount, or risk scores that are not in the input. Do not recommend an option without stating the strongest objection to it. Do not omit a realistic option that fits the constraints (e.g. "do nothing / delay") if it is material. Do not produce a multi-page essay - keep it memo-length and scannable. Do not pretend criteria weights exist if none were given; use equal weights and say so.
Fill in your details below - this prompt updates as you type, then copy it.
Fill in your details
0 of 5 filled. Preview updates as you type - then copy the finished prompt (negative prompt included when present).
decision-memo-with-trade-offs.md
Prompt preview
Write a decision memo. Make the trade-offs visible. Decision: {{decision}} Context: {{context}} Options I see: {{options}} Constraints (time, money, people, risk): {{constraints}} Who decides: {{decider}} Memo: 1. Decision in one sentence 2. Criteria and weights (or equal weights if I did not specify) 3. Options table vs criteria 4. Recommendation and the strongest objection to it 5. What evidence would flip the call 6. First 72-hour steps if we go with the recommendation If a critical option is missing, add it and say why.
Examples
Example input
Decision: Build our own billing portal vs buy ChargeDesk vs stay on Stripe Customer Portal for another year. Context: We hit 1,200 paying customers; support spends ~12 hours/week on invoice edits and plan changes Stripe portal cannot do (prorated seat adds mid-cycle, custom PO invoices). Sales wants branded invoices by Q4 board meeting (10 weeks). Options I see: A) Stripe Customer Portal + Zapier/workarounds B) ChargeDesk (or similar SaaS) - ~$400/mo at our volume C) Build in-house portal (estimate 6 - 8 eng weeks) Constraints: Eng capacity 1 FTE for 8 weeks max before feature freeze; budget <$8k one-time or <$500/mo; cannot risk PCI scope expansion; need mid-cycle seat changes working within 6 weeks. Who decides: Head of Product (with CFO veto on spend).
What you should get
1. Decision Choose how we support mid-cycle seat changes and branded/PO invoices within 6 - 10 weeks without expanding PCI scope or exceeding ~1 FTE / <$500/mo. 2. Criteria (equal weights - none specified) Time-to-value | Eng cost | Monthly cost | Feature fit (mid-cycle seats + PO invoices) | PCI / risk | Reversibility 3. Options vs criteria | Option | Time | Eng | $/mo | Fit | Risk | Reversible | | A Stripe + workarounds | Fast patches, fragile | Low ongoing | Low | Partial - PO invoices weak | Low PCI | High | | B ChargeDesk (SaaS) | Weeks to integrate | Low - med | ~$400 | Strong for support workflows | Low if they stay merchant-of-record patterns | High | | C Build in-house | 6 - 8 eng weeks (tight) | High | Infra only | Full control | Higher build/ops risk | Low | Missing option worth adding: D) Hire a contractor/agency to build a thin admin on Stripe Billing APIs (fixed bid) - same fit as C with less permanent eng load. 4. Recommendation B - ChargeDesk (or equivalent) for 12 months, with a written exit checklist. Strongest objection: another vendor dependency and ~$5k/year while we might still want a branded portal later. 5. Flip criteria Flip to C (or D) if a 2-week spike shows ChargeDesk cannot do mid-cycle seat proration + PO fields, or if CFO rejects recurring SaaS and approves a fixed build budget under $8k with a named owner. 6. First 72 hours - Day 1: Confirm ChargeDesk (or 1 alternate) against a checklist: mid-cycle seats, PO invoices, SSO, export. - Day 2: Security/PCI review with eng lead; CFO email with cost cap. - Day 3: Sandbox connect + one real support workflow dry-run; go/no-go note to Head of Product.
When to use this prompt
Use it when
- You need help with founders.
- You need help with pms.
- You need help with leads.
Skip it when
- You only need a one-line ask with no constraints, format, or context.
- You cannot supply the fill-in details the template asks for.
- A different category or tool-specific workflow fits the job better.
How to get a good result
Done when
1. Decision Choose how we support mid-cycle seat changes and branded/PO invoices within 6 - 10 weeks without expanding PCI scope or exceeding ~1 FTE / <$500/mo. 2. Criteria (equal weights - none specified) Time-to-value | Eng cost | Monthly cost | Feature fit (mid-cycle seats + PO invoices) | PCI / risk | Reversibility 3. Options vs criteria | Option | Time | Eng | $/mo | Fit | Risk | Reversible | | A Stripe + workarounds | Fast patches, fragile | Low ongoing | Low | Partial - PO invoices weak | Low PCI | High | | B ChargeDesk (SaaS) | Weeks to integrate | Low - med | ~$400 | Strong for support workflows | Low if they stay merchant-of-record patterns | High | | C Build in-house | 6 - 8 eng weeks (tight) | High | Infra only | Full control | Higher build/ops risk | Low | Missing option worth adding: D) Hire a contractor/agency to build a thin admin on Stripe Billing APIs (fixed bid) - same fit as C with less permanent eng load. 4. Recommendation B - ChargeDesk (or equivalent) for 12 months, with a written exit checklist. Strongest objection: another vendor dependency and ~$5k/year while we might still want a branded portal later. 5. Flip criteria Flip to C (or D) if a 2-week spike shows ChargeDesk cannot do mid-cycle seat proration + PO fields, or if CFO rejects recurring SaaS and approves a fixed build budget under $8k with a named owner. 6. First 72 hours - Day 1: Confirm ChargeDesk (or 1 alternate) against a checklist: mid-cycle seats, PO invoices, SSO, export. - Day 2: Security/PCI review with eng lead; CFO email with cost cap. - Day 3: Sandbox connect + one real support workflow dry-run; go/no-go note to Head of Product.
Common mistakes
- Leaving decision, context, options vague - the model then invents placeholders.
- Asking ChatGPT or Claude for a shorter answer after a long structured prompt - that throws away the format rules.
- Stopping when the first draft appears instead of checking it against the success criteria below.
FAQ
- What do I fill in before I copy this prompt?
- Replace these placeholders with your details: decision, context, options, constraints, decider. Required fields are marked on the page. The prompt text updates as you type.
- Which AI tools is this prompt written for?
- It works best with ChatGPT, Claude. Copy the filled prompt and paste it into the tool you already use.
- What should a good result look like?
- 1. Decision Choose how we support mid-cycle seat changes and branded/PO invoices within 6 - 10 weeks without expanding PCI scope or exceeding ~1 FTE / <$500/mo. 2. Criteria (equal weights - none specified) Time-to-value | Eng cost | Monthly cost | Feature fit (mid-cycle seats + PO invoices) | PCI / risk | Reversibility 3. Options vs criteria | Option | Time | Eng | $/mo | Fit | Risk | Reversible | | A Stripe + workarounds | Fast patches, fragile | Low ongoing | Low | Partial - PO invoices w…
- What are common mistakes with this prompt?
- Leaving decision, context, options vague - the model then invents placeholders. Asking ChatGPT or Claude for a shorter answer after a long structured prompt - that throws away the format rules. Stopping when the first draft appears instead of checking it against the success criteria below.
Best for
- Founders
- PMs
- Leads
Related Prompts
More prompts like this — same topic and style.