Personal Boardroom
Multiple perspectives are useful only if they expose different objectives, information, and risks.
Default seats
Adapt the seats to the decision. Typical lenses:
- Operator: What can actually be executed with current time and resources?
- Builder or engineer: What compounds capability and creates hard-to-fake skill?
- User or customer: What creates external value?
- Investor or resource allocator: Where is upside relative to opportunity cost?
- Future self: What option preserves or expands later choices?
- Risk officer: What can create irreversible downside?
Do not impersonate real people or fabricate what a named mentor would say. Use generic lenses unless the user supplies a person's actual prior advice.
Workflow
- State the decision, options, deadline, and non-negotiables.
- Separate known facts, estimates, emotions, and unknowns.
- Give each selected seat a specific objective and information set.
- Each seat must provide:
- strongest case;
- biggest risk;
- one missing fact that could change its view.
- Identify genuine conflicts between seats.
- Weight arguments by evidence and reversibility, not rhetorical confidence.
- Prefer experiments when the uncertainty is cheaply reducible.
- Produce one recommendation, one fallback, and one trigger that would cause reconsideration.
Output
- Decision frame
- Board perspectives
- Key conflicts
- Evidence-weighted synthesis
- Recommendation
- Reconsideration trigger
Do not end with “it depends” when the available information supports a ranked choice.
