convoke-agents 2.0.0

package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/pivot-patch-persevere/steps/step-04-stakeholder-input.md

@@ -0,0 +1,141 @@
+---
+step: 4
+workflow: pivot-patch-persevere
+title: Stakeholder Input
+---
+
+# Step 4: Stakeholder Input
+
+Before making the decision, we capture perspectives from everyone who has a stake in the outcome. This prevents blind spots and builds buy-in for whatever direction you choose.
+
+## Why This Matters
+
+Strategic decisions fail for two reasons: bad analysis and bad buy-in. Steps 1-3 addressed analysis. This step addresses buy-in. Even a perfect decision fails if the team doesn't commit to it. Stakeholder input:
+- Surfaces information you might have missed
+- Identifies concerns that could sabotage execution
+- Creates shared ownership of the decision
+- Provides a record of diverse viewpoints for future reference
+
+## Your Task
+
+### 1. Identify Key Stakeholders
+
+List everyone who should have input on this decision:
+
+| Stakeholder | Role | Why Their Input Matters |
+|------------|------|----------------------|
+| {name/role} | {position} | {what unique perspective they bring} |
+
+**Common stakeholders to include:**
+- Product lead / founder
+- Engineering lead (feasibility and technical debt perspective)
+- Design lead (user experience perspective)
+- Sales/marketing (market and customer perspective)
+- Customer success (retention and satisfaction perspective)
+- Finance (runway and unit economics perspective)
+- Individual contributors who ran the experiments
+
+### 2. Capture Each Perspective
+
+For each stakeholder, capture:
+
+**Their reading of the evidence:**
+- What do they see as the most important data point?
+- Do they agree with the analysis from Steps 2-3?
+- What evidence do they weigh differently than others?
+
+**Their preference:**
+- Which option do they lean toward? (Pivot / Patch / Persevere)
+- Why?
+- How strongly do they feel? (Strong conviction / Moderate preference / Open to persuasion)
+
+**Their concerns:**
+- What worries them about each option?
+- What would make them change their mind?
+- What conditions would they need to support an option they don't prefer?
+
+**Their blind spots (that others can see):**
+- Is their preference influenced by their role? (e.g., engineers prefer building, sales prefers what's sellable)
+- Are they anchored to sunk costs?
+- Are they influenced by ego or emotional attachment?
+
+### 3. Identify Points of Agreement
+
+Where does everyone agree?
+- Shared understanding of the problem
+- Shared assessment of evidence quality
+- Shared concerns or risks
+- Shared non-negotiables (things that must be true regardless of direction)
+
+### 4. Identify Points of Disagreement
+
+Where do stakeholders disagree?
+- Which evidence is most important
+- How to interpret ambiguous results
+- Risk tolerance (some prefer bold moves, others prefer safe bets)
+- Time horizon (short-term vs. long-term thinking)
+
+For each disagreement, note:
+- What would resolve it? (More data? Different framing? Compromise?)
+- Is this a factual disagreement (resolvable with evidence) or a values disagreement (requires alignment on priorities)?
+
+### 5. Surface Unspoken Dynamics
+
+Be honest about the human dynamics at play:
+
+**Common decision biases to watch for:**
+| Bias | Signs | Antidote |
+|------|-------|----------|
+| Sunk cost fallacy | "We've already invested X" | "Would we start this today if we hadn't already invested?" |
+| Confirmation bias | Only citing evidence that supports preferred option | "What evidence contradicts your preference?" |
+| Authority bias | Deferring to the loudest voice or highest rank | "Let's hear from everyone before the leader speaks" |
+| Groupthink | Quick consensus without real debate | "Who can steelman the opposite position?" |
+| Loss aversion | Fear of losing progress outweighs potential gains | "What's the cost of NOT changing?" |
+| Status quo bias | Defaulting to "keep going" because change is uncomfortable | "If we were starting fresh, would we choose this path?" |
+
+## Example
+
+**Stakeholder Perspectives:**
+
+**Alex (Product Lead):**
+- Evidence reading: Sees champion dependency as the key finding; believes it's patchable
+- Preference: PATCH (Strong conviction) -- "The problem is real, we just need to nail onboarding"
+- Concerns: Worried that pivoting wastes 4 months of validated learning about the problem space
+- Possible blind spot: Emotionally attached to the original vision
+
+**Jordan (Engineering Lead):**
+- Evidence reading: Concerned about video processing costs at scale; believes technical risks are underweighted
+- Preference: PATCH (Moderate) -- "I agree on direction but want to prototype the champion feature before committing"
+- Concerns: If we patch and it still doesn't work, we've lost another 6 weeks
+- Possible blind spot: Over-indexing on technical risk vs. market risk
+
+**Sam (Sales/Marketing):**
+- Evidence reading: Most excited about the "distributed teams only" finding; sees it as a sharper positioning angle
+- Preference: PATCH (Open to persuasion) -- "Narrowing the market is smart, but I need a clear pitch before I can sell it"
+- Concerns: Worried the narrowed market (distributed teams with 3+ timezones) is too small
+- Possible blind spot: Thinking about what's easy to sell vs. what users need
+
+**Agreement Points:**
+- The problem is real and validated
+- Co-located teams are NOT the right market
+- Some form of narrowing is needed
+- We need longer experiments (4+ weeks)
+
+**Disagreement Points:**
+- How risky is the champion dependency? (Alex: manageable; Jordan: significant; Sam: doesn't know)
+- Is the narrowed market large enough? (Alex: yes; Sam: uncertain)
+- Resolution: Both are factual disagreements resolvable with data (TAM analysis + champion experiment)
+
+---
+
+## Your Turn
+
+Please capture stakeholder input using the structure above. If you're the sole decision-maker, still work through this exercise by considering the perspective of each function (product, engineering, design, sales, finance).
+
+**Key principle:** The best decisions come from teams where people feel heard even when they're outvoted. Document dissenting views -- they're insurance against blind spots.
+
+## Next Step
+
+When you've captured stakeholder input, I'll load:
+
+{project-root}/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/pivot-patch-persevere/steps/step-05-decision.md

package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/pivot-patch-persevere/steps/step-05-decision.md

@@ -0,0 +1,161 @@
+---
+step: 5
+workflow: pivot-patch-persevere
+title: Decision
+---
+
+# Step 5: Decision
+
+Now we make the decision. This step forces you to commit clearly, document the rationale, and define what would make you revisit the decision.
+
+## Why This Matters
+
+A decision without clear rationale is just a guess. A decision without reversal criteria becomes dogma. This step ensures your decision is:
+- **Explicit** - Everyone knows what was decided and why
+- **Evidence-based** - Grounded in the analysis from previous steps
+- **Reversible** - You know what signals would cause you to reconsider
+- **Time-bound** - There's a checkpoint to reassess
+
+## Your Task
+
+### 1. State the Decision
+
+**Decision:** PIVOT / PATCH / PERSEVERE
+
+**One-sentence summary:** "We are choosing to [pivot/patch/persevere] by [specific action] because [core rationale]."
+
+### 2. Document the Rationale
+
+**Primary reasons for this decision (evidence-based):**
+1. {Reason 1 with supporting evidence}
+2. {Reason 2 with supporting evidence}
+3. {Reason 3 with supporting evidence}
+
+**Why NOT the other options:**
+
+If choosing Pivot:
+- Why not Patch? {reason with evidence}
+- Why not Persevere? {reason with evidence}
+
+If choosing Patch:
+- Why not Pivot? {reason with evidence}
+- Why not Persevere? {reason with evidence}
+
+If choosing Persevere:
+- Why not Pivot? {reason with evidence}
+- Why not Patch? {reason with evidence}
+
+### 3. Acknowledge What You're Betting On
+
+Every decision is a bet. Be explicit about yours:
+
+**We are betting that:**
+- {Assumption 1 that must hold for this to work}
+- {Assumption 2 that must hold}
+- {Assumption 3 that must hold}
+
+**We are accepting these risks:**
+- {Risk 1 and why we're accepting it}
+- {Risk 2 and why we're accepting it}
+
+**We are giving up:**
+- {Opportunity cost 1}
+- {Opportunity cost 2}
+
+### 4. Define Reversal Criteria
+
+Under what conditions would you revisit this decision?
+
+**KILL criteria (would trigger a full re-evaluation):**
+- {Specific, measurable signal that means this decision was wrong}
+- {Another specific signal}
+- Timeline: If these signals appear within {timeframe}, we reconvene
+
+**CONCERN criteria (would trigger a check-in but not necessarily reversal):**
+- {Specific, measurable signal that means things aren't going as planned}
+- {Another specific signal}
+- Response: If these appear, we {specific action}
+
+**Examples of good reversal criteria:**
+- "If patch experiment shows <60% adoption after 4 weeks with champion onboarding, we revisit"
+- "If we can't identify 50+ qualified prospects in the narrowed market within 3 weeks, the TAM concern is real"
+- "If the team champion role creates resentment or burnout in 2+ pilot teams, the mechanism is flawed"
+
+**Examples of bad reversal criteria (too vague):**
+- "If things don't work out"
+- "If the market shifts"
+- "If we feel it's not working"
+
+### 5. Rate Decision Confidence
+
+**Confidence level:** HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
+
+**What would increase your confidence:**
+- {Specific evidence or event that would make you more certain}
+- {Another factor}
+
+**Decision quality assessment:**
+| Factor | Rating | Note |
+|--------|--------|------|
+| Evidence completeness | {Good/Fair/Poor} | {gaps} |
+| Analysis rigor | {Good/Fair/Poor} | {limitations} |
+| Stakeholder alignment | {Strong/Moderate/Weak} | {dissents} |
+| Reversibility | {High/Medium/Low} | {what's hard to undo} |
+
+### 6. Record Dissenting Views
+
+If any stakeholders disagree with the decision, record their views here. This is not optional -- dissenting views are the most valuable part of a decision record because they're the first thing you'll re-read if the decision turns out to be wrong.
+
+**Dissenting view from {stakeholder}:**
+- They preferred: {option}
+- Their reasoning: {why}
+- Their concern about chosen direction: {specific worry}
+- Conditions under which they'd be proven right: {signals to watch}
+
+## Example
+
+**Decision:** PATCH
+
+**Summary:** "We are choosing to patch by narrowing our target market to distributed teams with 3+ timezones and adding champion onboarding, because the problem is validated but our solution needs these specific adjustments to achieve sustainable adoption."
+
+**Rationale:**
+1. Problem layer is strong (5+ hours/week pain confirmed, High confidence) -- no reason to pivot away from the problem
+2. Solution works under specific conditions (champion + distributed = 91% adoption) -- the failure was targeting, not concept
+3. Patch is testable in 4-6 weeks vs. 3-4 months for a pivot -- we preserve optionality
+
+**Why not Pivot:** Our problem hypotheses are validated. Pivoting would abandon confirmed insights (remote manager pain, willingness to pay) to chase unvalidated new direction.
+
+**Why not Persevere:** Evidence clearly shows co-located teams don't benefit and adoption without champions fails. Continuing the broad approach ignores data.
+
+**We are betting that:**
+- The champion role can be reliably onboarded (not just organic)
+- Distributed teams with 3+ timezones are a large enough market
+- 4-week adoption rates will stabilize after initial novelty drop
+
+**Reversal Criteria:**
+
+KILL: If patched experiment shows <65% adoption at 4 weeks with champion onboarding, the champion mechanism is insufficient. Re-evaluate all options.
+
+CONCERN: If TAM analysis shows fewer than 500 qualified companies, market may be too small. Consider broadening to 2+ timezones.
+
+**Confidence:** MEDIUM -- Evidence supports the patch direction but key assumptions (champion onboarding, market size) are untested.
+
+**Dissenting view (Sam, Sales):**
+- Preferred: Wanted to test broader market before narrowing
+- Reasoning: "Narrowing too early might cause us to miss adjacent segments"
+- Concern: TAM too small for venture-scale business
+- They'd be proven right if: TAM analysis returns <200 qualified companies
+
+---
+
+## Your Turn
+
+Please make and document your decision using the structure above.
+
+**Key principle:** A good decision is not one that turns out to be right. It's one that was made with the best available evidence, documented clearly, and is revisable when new evidence appears.
+
+## Next Step
+
+When you've documented the decision, I'll load:
+
+{project-root}/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/pivot-patch-persevere/steps/step-06-action-plan.md

package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/pivot-patch-persevere/steps/step-06-action-plan.md

@@ -0,0 +1,188 @@
+---
+step: 6
+workflow: pivot-patch-persevere
+title: Action Plan
+---
+
+# Step 6: Action Plan
+
+Now we translate the decision into a concrete action plan. What happens next, who does it, and how will you know it's working?
+
+## Why This Matters
+
+Decisions without action plans are just opinions. The gap between "we decided to patch" and "here's what happens Monday morning" is where most strategic decisions die. This step closes that gap with specifics.
+
+## Your Task
+
+### 1. Immediate Actions (This Week)
+
+What must happen RIGHT NOW to begin executing the decision?
+
+For each action:
+- **What:** Specific deliverable or task
+- **Who:** Named owner
+- **By when:** Specific date
+- **Done when:** How do you know this is complete?
+
+**Common immediate actions by decision type:**
+
+For PIVOT:
+- Communicate the pivot to the team with rationale
+- Pause current work that doesn't align with new direction
+- Identify what existing work carries over vs. what's abandoned
+- Begin discovery research for the new direction
+
+For PATCH:
+- Define the specific adjustments to make
+- Update target persona/market definitions
+- Design the patched experiment
+- Communicate scope changes to stakeholders
+
+For PERSEVERE:
+- Define the next milestone and success criteria
+- Allocate additional resources to current direction
+- Scale up experiments from pilot to broader testing
+- Set the next decision checkpoint date
+
+### 2. Next Experiment Design
+
+Your decision should lead directly to the next experiment. Design it now:
+
+**Experiment name:** {name}
+**Hypothesis:** We believe that [adjustment/new direction] will result in [measurable outcome] because [rationale from the decision].
+**Method:** {specific approach}
+**Sample size:** {target}
+**Duration:** {timeline}
+**Success criteria:** {pre-defined thresholds}
+
+**How this experiment tests the decision:**
+- If the experiment succeeds, it means: {the decision was right because...}
+- If the experiment fails, it means: {we need to reconsider because...}
+
+### 3. Communication Plan
+
+Who needs to know about this decision and when?
+
+| Audience | Message | Channel | When | Who Delivers |
+|----------|---------|---------|------|-------------|
+| Core team | Full rationale + action plan | Team meeting | {date} | {name} |
+| Stakeholders | Decision summary + implications | Email/document | {date} | {name} |
+| Customers/users | {if relevant} | {channel} | {date} | {name} |
+| Board/investors | {if relevant} | {format} | {date} | {name} |
+
+### 4. Resource Allocation
+
+What resources does this action plan require?
+
+**People:**
+- Who needs to shift focus?
+- Any new skills or hiring needed?
+- Who is freed up from deprioritized work?
+
+**Time:**
+- What's the timeline to first meaningful result?
+- What's the next decision checkpoint?
+- What deadlines or dependencies exist?
+
+**Budget:**
+- Direct costs (tools, ads, recruitment, etc.)
+- Opportunity cost of what you're NOT doing
+
+### 5. Success Metrics and Checkpoints
+
+Define how you'll track progress:
+
+**Leading indicators (check weekly):**
+These are early signals that the action plan is on track:
+- {metric 1: what you're measuring and target}
+- {metric 2: what you're measuring and target}
+
+**Lagging indicators (check at milestones):**
+These are the outcomes that prove the decision was right:
+- {metric 1: what you're measuring and target}
+- {metric 2: what you're measuring and target}
+
+**Checkpoint schedule:**
+
+| Date | What We Review | Decision to Make |
+|------|---------------|------------------|
+| {date} | Leading indicators from first week | Are we executing well? |
+| {date} | Mid-experiment data | Any early signals (positive or negative)? |
+| {date} | Full experiment results | Did the patch/pivot/persevere work? |
+| {date} | Strategic reassessment | Next PPP decision if needed |
+
+### 6. Risk Mitigation
+
+For each major risk identified in Step 5, define a mitigation:
+
+| Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation | Owner |
+|------|------------|--------|------------|-------|
+| {risk 1} | {H/M/L} | {H/M/L} | {specific action} | {name} |
+| {risk 2} | {H/M/L} | {H/M/L} | {specific action} | {name} |
+
+## Example
+
+**Immediate Actions:**
+
+| What | Who | By When | Done When |
+|------|-----|---------|-----------|
+| Update target persona to "distributed teams, 3+ timezones" | Alex | Monday | New persona doc shared with team |
+| Design champion onboarding flow (wireframes) | Dana | Wednesday | Flow documented with 5 onboarding steps |
+| Recruit 8-10 distributed teams for 4-week study | Sam | Friday next week | 8+ teams confirmed and scheduled |
+| Set up tracking dashboard for new experiment | Jordan | Thursday | Dashboard live with all metrics defined |
+
+**Next Experiment:**
+
+**Name:** Champion-Enabled Async Adoption Study v2
+**Hypothesis:** We believe that distributed teams (3+ timezones) will sustain 75%+ daily async video update participation over 4 weeks when onboarded with a designated team champion, because our pilot showed 91% adoption in champion-led distributed team vs. 62% without.
+**Method:** 4-week study with 8-10 teams, all with designated champions who complete a 30-minute onboarding session
+**Success criteria:**
+- 75%+ daily participation rate at Week 4 (not just Week 1)
+- Week 4 participation within 10% of Week 1 (proves sustainability)
+- Team alignment score 4.0+ on 5-point scale
+- At least 7 of 10 teams meet individual thresholds
+
+**Checkpoint Schedule:**
+
+| Date | Review | Decision |
+|------|--------|----------|
+| Week 1 end | Participation rates, champion engagement | Any teams need support? |
+| Week 2 end | Drop-off trends, qualitative feedback | Is novelty wearing off? Patterns emerging? |
+| Week 3 end | Sustainability signal, alignment scores | Early read: is this working? |
+| Week 4 end | Full results against success criteria | Next PPP decision |
+
+---
+
+## Your Turn
+
+Please create your action plan using the structure above. Make every action specific enough that someone could execute it without asking for clarification.
+
+**Key principle:** "We'll figure it out as we go" is not a plan. The specificity of your action plan is a direct measure of your decision's seriousness.
+
+---
+
+## Workflow Complete
+
+After creating the action plan, your PPP decision artifact will include:
+- Complete evidence inventory and analysis
+- Hypothesis health assessment
+- Rigorous option analysis (all three options seriously considered)
+- Stakeholder perspectives and dissenting views
+- Clear decision with rationale and reversal criteria
+- Concrete action plan with owners, timelines, and success metrics
+- Risk mitigation strategies
+
+## Vortex Compass
+
+Based on what you just completed, here are your evidence-driven options:
+
+| If you learned... | Consider next... | Agent | Why |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| Pivoting — problem correct, solution wrong | pivot-resynthesis | Mila 🔬 | Re-synthesize pains and gains for new direction (HC6) |
+| Patching — adjust approach | lean-experiment | Wade 🧪 | Test the adjusted approach |
+| Persevering — need deeper insight | user-discovery | Isla 🔍 | Strengthen your understanding of users (HC7) |
+
+> **Note:** These are evidence-based recommendations. You can navigate to any Vortex agent
+> at any time based on your judgment.
+
+**Or run Max's [VN] Vortex Navigation** for a full gap analysis across all streams.

package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/pivot-patch-persevere/validate.md

@@ -0,0 +1,159 @@
+---
+workflow: validate-pivot-patch-persevere
+type: single-file
+description: Validate an existing PPP decision for evidence basis, decision rationale, and action plan completeness
+author: Max (learning-decision-expert)
+---
+
+# Validate Existing PPP Decision
+
+Bring me a pivot/patch/persevere decision record and I'll help you assess whether the evidence basis is sound, the rationale is logical, and the action plan is complete.
+
+## Why Validation Matters
+
+Strategic decisions have outsized impact. A poorly reasoned pivot wastes months of validated learning. A stubborn persevere burns runway on a failed approach. Validation ensures your PPP decision is rigorous enough to bet the company's next quarter on.
+
+## Validation Process
+
+### 1. Evidence Basis Check
+
+**Is the evidence comprehensive?**
+- Are all relevant learning cards cited?
+- Is there both quantitative and qualitative evidence?
+- Are evidence gaps acknowledged?
+- Are STAY, CHANGE, and UNCLEAR signals all represented?
+
+**Red Flags:**
+- Decision based on a single experiment or data point
+- Only evidence supporting the chosen option is cited
+- Evidence gaps are not acknowledged
+- Market and competitive signals are missing
+- No customer evidence (only internal opinions)
+
+### 2. Hypothesis Assessment Check
+
+**Is the hypothesis stack complete?**
+- Problem, solution, AND business layers assessed?
+- Each hypothesis has a clear status with evidence?
+- Foundational vs. adjustable hypotheses are distinguished?
+- Health score calculation is accurate?
+
+**Red Flags:**
+- Only testing problem hypotheses (ignoring solution and business viability)
+- Status assigned without supporting evidence
+- "Confirmed" status with low-confidence evidence
+- Untested hypotheses treated as confirmed by default
+
+### 3. Option Analysis Check
+
+**Were all three options seriously considered?**
+
+The most important validation question: Can you articulate strong arguments FOR the rejected options?
+
+**Check for each option:**
+- Are the pros genuine advantages (not strawmen)?
+- Are the cons specific and evidence-based?
+- Is the resource cost realistic?
+- Is the confidence rating defensible?
+
+**Red Flags:**
+- One option clearly has more detailed analysis than others (the chosen one)
+- Pros of rejected options are dismissive or vague
+- Cons of the chosen option are minimized
+- No comparative summary
+- Confidence ratings don't match the evidence presented
+
+### 4. Decision Rationale Check
+
+**Does the decision logically follow from the analysis?**
+- Each reason cites specific evidence
+- Rejection of other options is evidence-based, not emotional
+- Bets and risks are explicitly acknowledged
+- Opportunity costs are identified
+
+**Red Flags:**
+- "We decided to persevere because we believe in our vision" (belief is not evidence)
+- Reasons don't reference the analysis from previous steps
+- No acknowledgment of what could go wrong
+- Dissenting views are absent or dismissed
+
+### 5. Action Plan Completeness Check
+
+**Is the action plan executable?**
+
+| Requirement | Present? | Quality |
+|-------------|----------|---------|
+| Immediate actions with owners and dates | {Yes/No} | {Specific/Vague} |
+| Next experiment with hypothesis and success criteria | {Yes/No} | {Rigorous/Weak} |
+| Communication plan | {Yes/No} | {Complete/Partial} |
+| Resource allocation | {Yes/No} | {Realistic/Optimistic} |
+| Success metrics (leading and lagging) | {Yes/No} | {Measurable/Vague} |
+| Checkpoint schedule | {Yes/No} | {Specific/Generic} |
+| Risk mitigation | {Yes/No} | {Actionable/Theoretical} |
+
+**Red Flags:**
+- Actions without owners ("the team will...")
+- No dates or deadlines
+- Success criteria defined after seeing results
+- No reversal criteria (the decision is treated as permanent)
+- No next experiment (decision is end point, not learning cycle)
+
+### 6. Bias Check
+
+**Common biases in PPP decisions:**
+
+| Bias | How to Detect | Present? |
+|------|--------------|----------|
+| Sunk cost | Rationale mentions "investment so far" | {Yes/No} |
+| Confirmation | Only favorable evidence cited | {Yes/No} |
+| Authority | Decision follows highest-ranking opinion | {Yes/No} |
+| Anchoring | First option considered gets most analysis | {Yes/No} |
+| Loss aversion | Risk of change is overweighted vs. risk of staying | {Yes/No} |
+| Groupthink | No dissenting views recorded | {Yes/No} |
+
+---
+
+## Your Turn
+
+**Please share:**
+1. The PPP decision record you want to validate (paste content or provide file path)
+2. Optionally: the learning cards that informed the decision
+
+I'll review it and provide:
+- **Evidence score** - Is the evidence base strong enough for this decision?
+- **Logic score** - Does the decision follow from the analysis?
+- **Completeness score** - Is the action plan executable?
+- **Bias assessment** - Are common decision biases present?
+- **Overall validation rating** - Decision-ready / Needs revision / Insufficient basis
+- **Specific improvement suggestions** - Exactly what to strengthen and how
+
+---
+
+## Validation Rating Scale
+
+**Decision-Ready:**
+- Evidence is comprehensive with gaps acknowledged
+- All three options were rigorously analyzed
+- Decision logically follows from evidence
+- Dissenting views are documented
+- Action plan is specific, owned, and time-bound
+- Reversal criteria are measurable
+- This decision can be confidently communicated to stakeholders
+
+**Needs Revision:**
+- Evidence has gaps that should be filled before deciding
+- Option analysis is uneven (favored option got more rigor)
+- Rationale has logical leaps
+- Action plan lacks specificity
+- Fix the identified issues, then re-evaluate the decision
+
+**Insufficient Basis:**
+- Evidence is too thin for the magnitude of the decision
+- Key hypotheses are untested
+- Option analysis is superficial
+- Decision appears predetermined rather than evidence-driven
+- Gather more evidence before making this decision
+
+---
+
+Ready to validate your PPP decision? Share it with me and I'll provide a thorough, honest assessment.