Product planning
Explain a feature tradeoff in one page
A tradeoff note lets someone who missed the discussion see what was considered and why one option won. Name the options, state the constraints, cite the evidence, record the decision, and say what would make you reopen it.
A text to start with
We are choosing between [option A] and [option B] for [feature]. Constraints: [time, team, technical, policy or user limits]. Evidence so far: [research, data, past experience, with sources]. We lean toward [option]. Write a one-page tradeoff note with the options, the criteria used to compare them, the evidence for each, the decision, and a condition that would make us revisit it. Mark claims without evidence.
Example request. Change the details to fit your situation.Tradeoff note
Feature and decision needed: [ ] Date and participants: [ ] Option A: [ ] Strengths of A: [ ] Costs or risks of A: [ ] Option B: [ ] Strengths of B: [ ] Costs or risks of B: [ ] Constraints that apply: [ ] Criteria used to compare, and who proposed each: [ ] Evidence for A (source): [ ] Evidence for B (source): [ ] Claims with no evidence: [ ] Decision: [ ] Who agreed and who disagreed: [ ] Condition that would reopen it: [ ] Date to check that condition: [ ]
Criteria chosen to fit the answer
Check that every comparison criterion matters to the feature decision and applies consistently to both options. A criterion added late may still be valid; record its reason rather than assuming a motive. Describe each option in terms its supporters would recognize. Make evidence gaps visible so an untested option is not mistaken for a proven failure. State who made the decision and which disagreements remain. Use a concrete revisit trigger, such as a changed constraint or a result the team can observe.
Ask another agent to check the result
Check whether the comparison criteria apply consistently to both options and are relevant to the stated decision. Identify missing evidence and strengths omitted from either option. Quote the wording behind each concern without guessing the authors' motives. Assess whether the revisit trigger can actually be observed.
Get the note read by someone with a stake
Ask someone who preferred the other option whether the note represents their case fairly. Check proposed corrections against the discussion and evidence, then record the remaining disagreements. Save the dated note with the team's decisions. Put the revisit trigger in the relevant planning agenda so someone knows when to check it.