Decision Brief

Decision Brief

When to Use

Use Decision Brief when:

• Findings from extraction, analysis, or prior workflow runs need to be packaged for a specific decision audience — engineering leads, architecture review boards, management, or cross-functional stakeholders.
• A decision is pending and the decision-makers need a structured, evidence-based summary rather than raw analysis output.
• You need to translate technical findings into a format that supports clear reasoning about options, trade-offs, and next steps.
• Multiple prior workflows have produced outputs that need to be synthesized into a single coherent recommendation surface.

Do not use Decision Brief when:

• No extraction or analysis has been performed yet. Run complexity-mapper, context-sharding, or architecture-risk-review first to generate the raw findings.
• The decision is purely technical and the audience is the same person who did the analysis. In that case, the raw analysis output may be sufficient.
• The findings are too preliminary for a decision — flag this and recommend further analysis instead of producing a weak brief.

Inputs Required

Input	Required	Description
Extracted findings	Yes	Outputs from prior workflow runs: Context Packets, Complexity Heat Maps, Hidden Risk Summaries, or direct analysis results. The more structured the input, the better the brief.
Ranked risks	Yes	Prioritized list of risks with severity assessments. Typically produced by complexity-mapper or architecture-risk-review. If not available, the brief will flag this gap.
Assumptions	Yes	Assumptions underlying the findings — both validated and unvalidated. These become critical context for decision-makers.
Decision audience	No	Who will read this brief and what decisions they are empowered to make. Shapes the level of technical detail and the framing of options. Defaults to technical leadership.
Options considered	No	If multiple design or implementation options were evaluated, provide them. If not provided, the brief will present findings as applying to the current proposed approach.

Process Steps

Step 1: Gather Extraction Outputs

Collect all available outputs from prior workflow runs or direct input:

• Context Packets from context-sharding
• Complexity Heat Maps and Hidden Risk Summaries from complexity-mapper
• Risk assessments from architecture-risk-review
• Pattern Remix Drafts from pattern-remix
• Source Manifests from web-researcher (if web research was performed upstream)
• Dispatch Plans from extraction-planner (for understanding how extraction was parallelized)
• Any direct analysis notes, findings, or data provided by the user

For each input, verify:

1. Source anchors are present: Every finding should trace back to specific evidence. Unanchored findings get flagged as inferred.
2. Confidence ratings are present: If the input doesn't include confidence, assign conservative ratings and note that they were not part of the original analysis.
3. Recency: Ensure the findings are current. Stale analysis based on outdated documentation should be flagged.

If the inputs are insufficient for a meaningful brief — fewer than three substantive findings, no risk assessment, or no concrete evidence — stop and recommend running complexity-mapper or another appropriate upstream workflow first. Do not produce a thin brief that creates false confidence.

Step 2: Invoke synthesis-brief-writer with Decision Brief Contract

Before final synthesis, check reference/examples/ for sample Decision Brief outputs. Match the format and depth of any found examples to maintain consistency. Also check reference/prompts/ for decision-framing patterns the user has found effective — these can sharpen the brief's structure and language.

Pass all gathered inputs to the synthesis-brief-writer agent with the Decision Brief output contract and the following instructions:

Structure the brief to answer these questions in order:

1. What is being decided? Frame the decision clearly. If the user hasn't stated the decision explicitly, infer it from the findings and flag the inference.
2. What options were considered? List each option with a one-sentence description. If only one option was analyzed, state this and note that the brief reflects a single-option assessment.
3. What does the evidence say? Summarize findings organized by option. Separate evidence-backed findings from inferred concerns. Every finding must cite its source.
4. What are the top risks? Present the highest-severity risks with their triggers, impact, and likelihood. Include source anchors.
5. What is unresolved? List open questions that the decision-makers should be aware of — things the analysis could not answer, data that was missing, assumptions that remain unvalidated.
6. What should happen next? Recommend concrete next steps: validations to run, prototypes to build, vendor conversations to have, follow-up analyses to commission.

Synthesis-brief-writer constraints:

• Do not introduce new analysis. The brief synthesizes existing findings; it does not generate new ones.
• Mark every inferred concern with [Inferred] so decision-makers can distinguish evidence from interpretation.
• If findings from different sources contradict each other, present both perspectives. Do not silently resolve contradictions.
• Keep the brief under 2 pages of content (excluding tables). Decision-makers will not read longer documents; move supporting detail to appendices.

Step 3: Verify Output Completeness

Before presenting, check the Decision Brief against these requirements:

• Decision frame: The decision being made is clearly stated.
• Options considered: At least one option is described. Single-option briefs are explicitly labeled as such.
• Evidence summary: Findings are organized, sourced, and confidence-rated.
• Inferred concerns marked: Every inference is labeled [Inferred].
• Top risks: At least three risks are listed with severity, trigger, and source. If fewer than three risks were identified, flag this as unusual.
• Unresolved questions: At least one open question is listed. If none were found, flag this — it usually means the analysis wasn't deep enough.
• Recommended next steps: Concrete, actionable items with rationale.
• Length check: Core brief fits in 2 pages. Appendices are used for supporting detail.

If any check fails, return to the synthesis-brief-writer with specific feedback.

Step 4: Present to User

Deliver the Decision Brief with:

• A one-line summary of the decision and the brief's top recommendation (or "no recommendation — insufficient evidence" if that is the case).
• The full brief.
• A note on what would strengthen the brief if the user wants higher confidence: additional data, further analysis, stakeholder input.

Output Format

The output is a Decision Brief conforming to the output contract:

## Decision Brief

### Decision Frame
[What is being decided, who is deciding, and what authority level is required]

### Options Considered
| Option | Description | Analysis Depth |
|---|---|---|
| [Option A] | [One-sentence description] | [Full / Partial / Surface-level] |
| [Option B] | [One-sentence description] | [Full / Partial / Surface-level] |

### Evidence Summary

#### Option A
- [Finding]: [Source] — Confidence: [H/M/L]
- [Finding]: [Source] — Confidence: [H/M/L]
- [Inferred] [Concern]: [Reasoning] — Confidence: [L]

#### Option B
- [Finding]: [Source] — Confidence: [H/M/L]

### Top Risks
| Risk | Severity | Trigger | Evidence Source | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Risk] | [Critical/High/Medium] | [What causes it] | [Source anchor] | [H/M/L] |

### Contradictions (if any)
- [Source A] says [X]; [Source B] says [Y]. Resolution requires: [action].

### Unresolved Questions
| Question | Why It Matters | Suggested Resolution |
|---|---|---|
| [Question] | [Impact on decision] | [How to answer it] |

### Recommended Next Steps
1. [Action]: [Rationale] — Owner: [Suggested]
2. [Action]: [Rationale] — Owner: [Suggested]

### Appendices (if needed)
- [Appendix A: Full risk inventory]
- [Appendix B: Detailed evidence tables]

Failure Modes and Caution Points

Failure Mode	Signal	Response
Insufficient extraction data	Step 1 yields fewer than 3 substantive findings or no risk assessment	Stop. Do not produce a thin brief. Recommend running complexity-mapper or architecture-risk-review first to generate adequate raw material.
Single-perspective input	All findings come from one source, one extraction agent, or one analysis workflow	Flag in the brief that the evidence base is limited. Lower all confidence ratings by one level. Recommend additional analysis from a different angle.
Missing cost or dependency analysis	No findings related to cost implications or system dependencies	Flag the gap explicitly in the Unresolved Questions section. Recommend running the relevant extraction (cost-capacity-analyst or architecture-dependency-mapper) before finalizing the decision.
Stale findings	Input findings are based on documentation or analysis more than 30 days old	Flag recency concerns in the brief. Recommend re-running upstream analysis with current documentation before making the decision.
False precision	Brief presents low-confidence findings as high-confidence, or uses precise numbers from rough estimates	Review confidence ratings in Step 3. Ensure [Inferred] labels are applied. Remove false precision from quantitative claims.
Scope creep in synthesis	synthesis-brief-writer introduces new analysis not present in the inputs	Reject and re-invoke. The brief synthesizes; it does not analyze. New observations must be labeled [Inferred] at minimum, but the brief should not be the place for new investigation.