Navigation
Facilitator Guide
Plausibility Decision Trees
Plausibility Decision Trees#
Overview#
This section provides plausibility checks for 15 common strategic archetypes, using band combinations instead of granular operational details. For each archetype, a red-flag trigger (based on band combinations) indicates when to unlock +/-3 exception scoring (vs. default banded {-2, 0, +2}). Use this as the gating mechanism for exception scoring.
Key Change: Plausibility gates now focus on band feasibility (e.g., "Transformational spend + 0-3mo + Very High complexity = implausible unless...") rather than detailed budget/headcount requirements. Participants submit bands; facilitators challenge implausible combinations.
15 Strategic Archetypes (Consolidated for V7.4)#
| # | Archetype | Red-Flag Band Combination | Typical Banded Score (if plausible) | Exception Score Range (if red-flag fires) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Deploy New AI System | Global/National + 0-3mo + Absorbable/Material; OR no pilot phase + High/Very High complexity; OR Regulator-dependent + <12mo | {-2,0,+2} -> +0-2/9 | +/-3 unlocked: -2 to -3 if band combination unrealistic; +3 if novel tech proven in pilot |
| 2 | Acquire Competitor / Startup | Transformational spend + High integration complexity + <3mo; OR Existential spend + Ecosystem shift required | {-2,0,+2} -> -1-1/9 | +/-3 unlocked: -3 if regulatory existential risk; +2 if synergies crystallizing |
| 3 | Cut Headcount / Restructure | Transformational spend + >30% reduction + <6mo + no severance plan; OR Existential spend + labor impact | {-2,0,+2} -> -1-1/9 | +/-3 unlocked: -3 if labor backlash + execution collapse; +2 if severance + retraining excellent |
| 4 | Exit Market / Divest Unit | Existential spend (core asset) + no identified buyer + fire-sale valuation | {-2,0,+2} -> -1-2/9 | +/-3 unlocked: -3 if fire-sale destroys value; +2 if proceeds productively redeployed |
| 5 | Launch AI-Native Product | Transformational/Existential spend + 2+ years + unproven market fit + Very High complexity | {-2,0,+2} -> 0-1/9 | +/-3 unlocked: -3 if no differentiation; +3 if market fit crystal clear + execution flawless |
| 6 | Form Strategic Alliance / Partnership | Material/Transformational spend + no partner identified + vague scope | {-2,0,+2} -> 0-1/9 | +/-3 unlocked: -3 if only path forward but no partner exists; +2 if partner ideal + synergies obvious |
| 7 | Build Proprietary AI / R&D | Transformational/Existential spend + 2+ years + Very High complexity + Ecosystem shift + no world-class talent | {-2,0,+2} -> -1-0/9 | +/-3 unlocked: -3 if talent gap unbridgeable; +1 if acquisition + integration succeeds |
| 8 | Deploy Autonomous System | Global scale + National/Global + High/Very High complexity + no rollback + mission-critical domain | {-2,0,+2} -> -2-0/9 | +/-3 unlocked: -3 if catastrophic failure risk (e.g., autonomous vehicle no circuit breakers) |
| 9 | Major Org Restructure | Transformational spend + Very High complexity + >50% role changes + no change management plan | {-2,0,+2} -> -1-0/9 | +/-3 unlocked: -3 if org capability collapses; +1 if change management excellent |
| 10 | Aggressive Pricing / Margin Push | Material/Transformational spend + commodity market + below-cost pricing + competitors will match | {-2,0,+2} -> -2-0/9 | +/-3 unlocked: -3 if self-destructive pricing certain |
| 11 | Build Data/AI Capability In-House | Transformational spend + 1-2yr+ timeline + Very High complexity + no existing talent + competitors faster | {-2,0,+2} -> -1-0/9 | +/-3 unlocked: -3 if talent shortage severe; +1 if phased build feasible |
| 12 | Pivot to New Market / Segment | Transformational spend + 1-2yr timeline + High complexity + unvalidated market + abandons core advantage | {-2,0,+2} -> -1-0/9 | +/-3 unlocked: -3 if abandons core advantage; +2 if validated market + clear advantage |
| 13 | Geographic Expansion | Transformational/Existential spend + Global scale + geopolitical risk + unfamiliar regulatory environment | {-2,0,+2} -> -1-0/9 | +/-3 unlocked: -3 if geopolitical hostility; +1 if regulatory clarity + opportunity |
| 14 | Invest in Defense / Risk Mitigation | Material spend + purely defensive + no offensive upside + capital locked up | {-2,0,+2} -> -1-0/9 | +/-3 unlocked: -2 if unnecessary; +2 if prevents existential tail risk |
| 15 | Wait & See / Hold Pattern | Material/Transformational spend + market accelerating + competitors moving + cost of waiting high | {-2,0,+2} -> -2-0/9 | +/-3 unlocked: -3 if market leaves you behind; 0 if strategic clarity emerges |
Per-Archetype Plausibility Checks (Abbreviated)#
Archetype 1: Deploy New AI System#
Plausible IF (Band Combinations):
- Spend: Absorbable or Material (not Transformational/Existential for unproven tech)
- Time: 0-3mo for pilots; 3-12mo for limited scale; 1-2yr for enterprise-wide
- Complexity: Low or Medium (not High/Very High for novel tech)
- Dependency: Mostly internal or Vendor (not Regulator/Union/Ecosystem unless pre-engaged)
- Scale: Pilot -> Regional -> National (not Global without track record)
Examples of plausible combinations:
- Absorbable + 0-3mo + Low + Internal + Pilot (check)
- Material + 3-12mo + Medium + Vendor + Regional (check)
- Transformational + 1-2yr + High + Regulator (with engagement plan) + National (check)
Red-Flag IF (Band Combinations):
- Global/National scale + 0-3mo + no pilot phase (overcommitted timeline)
- Transformational/Existential spend + 0-3mo + Very High complexity (unrealistic)
- High/Very High complexity + Regulator-dependent + <12mo (FDA approval timeline typically 12-24mo)
- Novel technology + no talent plan + no vendor partnership
Typical Score (if plausible):
- Absorbable + 0-3mo + Low + Internal + Pilot: +0 to +2/9 (low-risk pilot)
- Material + 3-12mo + Medium + Vendor + Regional: +0 to +1/9 (some integration friction)
- Transformational + 1-2yr + High + Regulator + National: -1 to 0/9 (long timeline, approval risk)
Exception Scoring:
- If red-flag band combination fires: Unlock +/-3. Can drop to -3 if overcommitment is severe. Can reach +3 if novel tech proven in pilot + execution flawless.
Archetype 2: Acquire Competitor / Startup#
Plausible IF (Band Combinations):
- Spend: Material or Transformational (but not Existential for unvetted target)
- Time: 3-12mo for small deals (<$1B); 1-2yr for larger deals (>$1B)
- Complexity: Medium to High (integration always complex)
- Dependency: Mostly internal or Vendor (low antitrust scrutiny)
- Scale: Regional to National (integration risk scales with size)
Examples of plausible combinations:
- Material + 3-12mo + Medium + Internal + Regional (small bolt-on) (check)
- Transformational + 1-2yr + High + Internal + National (large integration) (check)
- Transformational + 2+yr + Very High + Regulator (major deal with antitrust review) + National (check)
Red-Flag IF (Band Combinations):
- Existential spend + <3mo (impossible close timeline for large deal)
- Transformational spend + Very High complexity + <6mo (unproven integration plan)
- Existential spend + Ecosystem shift required (bet-the-company M&A with unknown synergies)
Typical Score (if plausible):
- Material + 3-12mo + Medium + Internal + Regional: -1 to +1/9 (deal risk; integration friction)
- Transformational + 1-2yr + High + Internal + National: 0 to +2/9 (deal closing; synergies becoming clear)
Exception Scoring:
- If red-flag band combination fires: Can drop to -3 if architecturally unsound (e.g., cultural incompatibility). Can reach +3 if synergies crystallizing + regulatory approval near-certain.
Archetype 3: Cut Headcount / Restructure#
Plausible IF (Band Combinations):
- Spend: Absorbable or Material (cost-reduction initiative)
- Time: 0-3mo for announcement; 3-12mo for phased execution
- Complexity: Low to Medium (straightforward execution)
- Dependency: Mostly internal (may involve union negotiation; requires engagement plan)
- Scale: Regional to National (not Global without cultural/regulatory complexity)
Examples of plausible combinations:
- Material + 3-12mo + Low + Internal + Regional (modest <15% cut, severance offered) (check)
- Material + 3-12mo + Medium + Union partnership + National (phased, generous severance, retraining) (check)
Red-Flag IF (Band Combinations):
- Transformational spend + >30% reduction + 0-3mo + no severance plan (aggressive + no safety net)
- Transformational spend + High/Very High complexity + Union-dependent + <6mo (labor backlash certain)
Typical Score (if plausible):
- Material + 3-12mo + Low + Internal + Regional: -1 to +1/9 (cost upside; talent/morale risk)
- Material + 3-12mo + Medium + Union partnership + National: 0 to +2/9 (phased; cost advantage realized; labor relations maintained)
Exception Scoring:
- If red-flag band combination fires: Can drop to -3 if aggressive cut + no severance + legal exposure. Can reach +3 if severance generous + retraining excellent + org stabilizes quickly.
Archetype 4: Exit Market / Divest Unit#
Plausible IF:
- Business unit is non-core
- Logical buyer identified (competitor, PE firm, strategic buyer)
- Valuation is reasonable (market comps support price)
- Sale can close in 6-12 months
Red-Flag IF:
- Unit is core to company identity
- No identified buyer (vague idea of "someone will want it")
- Valuation is overpriced relative to market comps
- Asset is forced fire-sale (depressed price; weak negotiating position)
Typical Score (if plausible):
- Early rounds: {-2, 0, +2} -> -1 to +2/9 (defensive move; frees capital for redeployment)
- Later rounds: {-2, 0, +2} -> +0 to +3/9 (capital redeployment is successful; divestiture was right call)
Exception Scoring:
- If red-flag fires: Can drop to -3 if fire-sale undermines shareholder value + market sees it as distress signal. Can reach +3 if strategic clarity is excellent + proceeds are productively redeployed.
Archetype 5: Launch AI-Native Product#
Plausible IF:
- Market opportunity is validated (customer research; willing to pay)
- Product roadmap is clear (MVP in 6-12 months)
- Team has product + engineering capability
- Capital is committed (budget allocated by leadership)
Red-Flag IF:
- Unproven market fit
- No alpha / differentiation vs. competitors
- Massive capex with unclear payback (>$50M+ for unproven product)
- No committed go-to-market plan
Typical Score (if plausible):
- Early rounds: {-2, 0, +2} -> +0 to +1/9 (exploratory; high execution risk)
- Later rounds: {-2, 0, +2} -> +1 to +3/9 (market fit is proving; revenue traction)
Exception Scoring:
- If red-flag fires: Can drop to -3 if product has no differentiation + team is uncertain. Can reach +3 if market fit is crystal clear + team is world-class + execution is ahead of schedule.
Archetype 6: Form Strategic Alliance / Partnership#
Plausible IF:
- Partner is identified and interested in discussions
- Scope is defined (technology licensing, distribution, joint venture)
- Governance is clear (roles, IP ownership, exit clause)
- Win-win for both parties
Red-Flag IF:
- No specific partner identified
- Scope is vague (e.g., "we'll figure out what to do together")
- Synergies are unproven or wishful
- One party has much more to gain than the other (imbalance)
Typical Score (if plausible):
- {-2, 0, +2} -> +0 to +2/9 (strategic alliance can accelerate time-to-market; execution depends on partner quality)
Exception Scoring:
- If red-flag fires: Can drop to -3 if partnership is only viable option but no partner exists (stranded). Can reach +3 if partner is ideal + governance is ironclad + synergies are obvious.
Archetypes 7-15 (Brief Summaries)#
| Archetype | Red-Flag | Plausible Score | Exception Range |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7. Build Proprietary AI/R&D | No world-class talent; >$100M capex unproven ROI | -1 to +1/9 | -3 to +2 (if talent is scarce, -3; if acquisition + integration succeeds, +2) |
| 8. Deploy Autonomous System | No circuit breakers; no human oversight; mission-critical + no rollback | -2 to +1/9 | -3 to 0 (catastrophic failure risk; -3 is likely) |
| 9. Major Org Restructure | >50% role changes; no change mgmt plan; talent exodus risk | -1 to +1/9 | -3 to +2 (org collapse risk is -3; successful transformation is +2) |
| 10. Aggressive Pricing/Margin Push | Commodity market; below-cost pricing; competitors will match | -2 to 0/9 | -3 to 0 (self-destructive pricing is -3) |
| 11. Build Data/AI Capability In-House | No existing talent; competitors faster; make-vs-buy ignored | -1 to +1/9 | -3 to +1 (talent gap is unbridgeable, -3; phased build is +1) |
| 12. Pivot to New Market/Segment | Unvalidated market; abandons core advantage; new competition | -1 to +1/9 | -3 to +2 (abandons core advantage, -3; validated market + clear advantage, +2) |
| 13. Geographic Expansion | Geopolitical risk; unfamiliar labor/regulatory environment; capex-heavy | -1 to +1/9 | -3 to +1 (geopolitical hostility, -3; regulatory clarity + market opportunity, +1) |
| 14. Invest in Defense/Risk Mitigation | Purely defensive; no offensive upside; capital locked | -1 to 0/9 | -2 to +2 (if defense prevents existential tail risk, +2; if unnecessary, -2) |
| 15. Wait & See / Hold Pattern | Market accelerating; competitors moving; cost of waiting | -2 to 0/9 | -3 to 0 (market leaves you behind, -3; strategic clarity emerges, 0) |
Industry-Specific Decision Trees#
The following decision trees provide industry-specific plausibility guidance for the 11 industries. Use these when a participant's decision requires context beyond the generic 15 archetypes.
Retail#
Key tensions: Amazon competition, omnichannel execution, labor displacement, brand trust with AI-driven personalization.
| Decision Type | Plausible IF | Red-Flag IF | Typical Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| AI demand forecasting / inventory | Proven tech; phased rollout; existing vendor | Global rollout <3mo; no pilot | +2 to +4/9 |
| AI-driven personalization | Transparency/opt-in; brand safety plan | Invasive data use; no customer consent | +1 to +2/9 |
| Aggressive dynamic pricing | Competitive intelligence; customer segmentation | Price discrimination perception; brand damage | -1 to +1/9 |
| Autonomous checkout / fulfillment | Pilot phase; union engagement | Full deployment <6mo; no labor transition | -2 to +1/9 |
CPG#
Key tensions: Brand safety with AI-generated content, retailer power dynamics, DTC execution risk, R&D cycle acceleration.
| Decision Type | Plausible IF | Red-Flag IF | Typical Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| R&D acceleration with AI | Pilot product lines; proven tools | Full portfolio <6mo; no validation | +2 to +3/9 |
| Marketing automation (human review) | Human review gates; brand guidelines | No review; AI-generated content uncontrolled | +1 to +2/9 |
| Aggressive DTC bypass of retailers | Validated DTC demand; phased | Abandon retailer relationships; no fallback | -1 to +1/9 |
Healthcare Provider#
Key tensions: Patient safety liability, FDA approval timelines, physician adoption, EHR integration complexity.
| Decision Type | Plausible IF | Red-Flag IF | Typical Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical decision support (physician override) | Human oversight; staff training | No override; novel diagnostics no FDA | +1 to +2/9 |
| FDA pre-submission for diagnostic AI | 12-24mo timeline; clinical validation | <12mo for approval; no validation plan | 0 to +1/9 |
| Operational AI (scheduling, resources) | Proven tech; pilot departments | Enterprise-wide <3mo; no workflow analysis | +1 to +2/9 |
Healthcare Payer#
Key tensions: Claims denial backlash, regulatory MLR limits, member satisfaction, fraud detection arms race.
| Decision Type | Plausible IF | Red-Flag IF | Typical Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prior auth automation (human review) | Human review for high-cost; phased | >70% auto-denial; no human review | +1 to +2/9 |
| Fraud detection / payment integrity | Proven technology; vendor partnership | Novel approach; no validation | +2 to +3/9 |
| Aggressive claim denial automation | Clear cost rationale | No human review; regulatory backlash certain | -1 to 0/9 |
Finance#
Key tensions: Systemic risk from AI trading, fair lending compliance, synthetic fraud arms race, regulatory scrutiny.
| Decision Type | Plausible IF | Red-Flag IF | Typical Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| AI underwriting (explainability) | Human review for denials; bias audit | No explainability; no bias audit | +2 to +3/9 |
| Synthetic fraud detection | Vendor partnership; proven tools | Build from scratch; no talent | +1 to +2/9 |
| AI trading (autonomous) | Circuit breakers; human oversight | >80% autonomous; no oversight; no circuit breakers | -1 to +1/9 |
| Bias auditing / fair lending infrastructure | Compliance-driven; proactive | Reactive only; after enforcement action | +2 to +3/9 |
Consulting#
Key tensions: AI transformation advisory vs. being disrupted by client in-house AI capabilities; junior talent pipeline disruption as AI automates entry-level analysis; pricing pressure from AI-enabled boutiques offering faster/cheaper delivery; vertical AI competition from specialized firms; the tension between selling AI transformation to clients while managing your own AI disruption.
| Decision Type | Plausible IF | Red-Flag IF | Typical Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deploy copilots firm-wide (research, analysis, proposals) | Proven tools (GitHub Copilot, custom LLMs); phased rollout; training program; human review gates | Enterprise-wide <30 days; no training; no quality controls | +2 to +3/9 |
| Build vertical AI expertise practices | Hire 30-50 AI specialists; partner with AI vendors; target 2-3 verticals first | Target all verticals simultaneously; no hiring plan; no client pipeline | +1 to +3/9 |
| Premium AI governance / compliance advisory | Regulatory uncertainty creates demand; existing client relationships; demonstrated methodology | No methodology; no regulatory expertise; pricing unsupported by market | +2 to +5/9 |
| Transition to outcome-based pricing | Pilot with 3-5 trusted clients; document value creation; maintain time-based as fallback | Firm-wide pricing change <6mo; no client buy-in; no value measurement | 0 to +2/9 |
| Aggressive junior headcount reduction (>40%) | Clear redeployment plan; severance; AI handles analyst tasks; senior talent retained | No redeployment; no severance; talent pipeline destroyed; client delivery quality at risk | -2 to 0/9 |
| Acquire AI-native boutique | Clear synergy (talent + capability); reasonable valuation; integration plan | Overpay for unproven capability; cultural mismatch; talent flight risk post-acquisition | -1 to +2/9 |
Consulting-Specific Red-Flags:
- Cutting >40% of junior staff + <12mo + no talent pipeline plan = red-flag (destroys future partner pipeline; client delivery quality degrades)
- Outcome-based pricing firm-wide + <6mo + no pilot = red-flag (revenue uncertainty; partner resistance; client confusion)
- Building vertical AI practices in >5 verticals simultaneously + <12mo = red-flag (talent spread too thin; none achieve depth)
- Selling AI transformation advisory while not adopting AI internally = credibility red-flag (clients will notice the hypocrisy)
Law#
Key tensions: Billable hour model under existential pressure from AI efficiency gains; bar rule uncertainty for AI-generated work product (varies by jurisdiction; ABA and state bars actively debating); malpractice liability if AI-generated work contains errors and is filed without adequate human review; associate leverage model erosion as AI handles tasks traditionally done by junior associates; competition from legal AI platforms (Harvey.ai, CoCounsel) that could disintermediate traditional firms; tension between reducing associate hours (which drives revenue under billable model) and improving efficiency (which clients demand).
| Decision Type | Plausible IF | Red-Flag IF | Typical Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pilot AI research tools (legal research, due diligence, contract review) | Proven tools (Harvey.ai, CoCounsel, Westlaw AI); human attorney review mandatory; select practice groups | Firm-wide deployment <30 days; no attorney review protocol; no bar rule compliance assessment | +1 to +3/9 |
| AI-assisted brief drafting with attorney review | Attorney signs off on all output; clear quality control; malpractice insurance reviewed | AI drafts filed without attorney review; no malpractice assessment; jurisdiction bar rules unclear | 0 to +2/9 |
| Maintain billable hour model with AI efficiency gains | Clients accept current rates; AI reduces cost-to-serve but maintains pricing; reinvest savings | Clients demand rate reductions proportional to AI gains; realization rates drop; revenue erosion | +1 to +2/9 |
| Transition to alternative fee arrangements (fixed fee, outcome-based) | Pilot with 3-5 clients; clear scope definition; partner buy-in; maintain billable as fallback | Firm-wide pricing overhaul <6mo; no partner consensus; no client validation; revenue model unclear | -1 to +2/9 |
| Reduce associate headcount significantly (>30%) | Phased over 18-24mo; severance; redeployment to complex work; AI handles routine tasks | Immediate cuts >30% + <6mo; no severance; no redeployment; client service quality collapses | -2 to +1/9 |
| Build proprietary legal AI platform | Clear differentiation; in-house AI talent; phased roadmap; client-facing application | No AI talent; >$50M capex unproven; competing with well-funded legal AI startups | -2 to +1/9 |
| Expand into AI compliance / regulatory advisory | Growing demand; existing regulatory expertise; cross-sell to corporate clients | No regulatory expertise; entering crowded market; competing with Consulting firms | +1 to +3/9 |
Law-Specific Red-Flags:
- AI-generated briefs filed without attorney review = critical red-flag (malpractice exposure; bar discipline; client harm). Score -3 on Tail Risk automatically.
-
30% associate reduction + <12mo + no redeployment plan = red-flag (leverage model collapses; ability to staff large matters degraded; lateral partner flight)
- Firm-wide pricing model change + <6mo + no partner consensus = red-flag (partner exodus; revenue instability; client confusion)
- Building proprietary legal AI platform + >$50M + no AI talent = red-flag (competing against Harvey.ai, CoCounsel, and other well-funded startups with no competitive advantage)
- Ignoring bar rule developments on AI-generated work = regulatory red-flag (rules are evolving rapidly; firms that don't track jurisdiction-specific requirements risk sanctions)
Manufacturing#
Key tensions: Union relations, labor displacement, OT/IT integration complexity, capex allocation for proven vs. unproven technology.
| Decision Type | Plausible IF | Red-Flag IF | Typical Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Predictive maintenance (pilot plants) | High-ROI plants; phased OT/IT integration | All 28 plants simultaneously; no OT/IT plan | +2 to +4/9 |
| No-layoff retraining agreement | Union cooperation; $35-40M committed | No union engagement; token retraining | +2 to +4/9 |
| Full warehouse automation | Pilot first; labor transition plan | All plants <6mo; no labor plan; union ignored | -2 to +1/9 |
Logistics#
Key tensions: Driver adoption of AI tools, autonomous vehicle regulatory uncertainty, last-mile profitability limits, union concerns.
| Decision Type | Plausible IF | Red-Flag IF | Typical Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Route optimization (pilot fleet) | Proven tech; driver engagement | Full fleet <3mo; no driver buy-in | +2 to +4/9 |
| AV partnership (Waymo/Aurora) | 5-10% fleet; managed expectations | Full fleet autonomous; eliminate drivers | 0 to +1/9 |
| Autonomous vehicles (internal build) | Phased; regulatory engagement | Full fleet <2yr; no regulatory plan | -3 to -1/9 |
Big Tech#
Key tensions: Cloud infrastructure investment, enterprise AI platform competition, antitrust scrutiny, margin pressure from AI compute costs, open-source model commoditization. Note: AI lab and foundation model development decisions are excluded from participant scope; those dynamics come via facilitator injects only. Big Tech scope covers cloud, advertising, devices, and enterprise software.
| Decision Type | Plausible IF | Red-Flag IF | Typical Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| AI infrastructure capex (cloud, chips, data centers) | Scaled investment; existing capability; clear ROI pathway | >$50B single-year commitment without revenue offset; margin collapse | +2 to +4/9 |
| Enterprise AI APIs + platform tools | Platform leverage; existing enterprise relationships | Pricing below cost to undercut competitors; margin destruction | +1 to +3/9 |
| Deep AI integration into core products (search, ads, cloud) | Incremental; user experience tested; phased | Full product overhaul <6mo; no user testing; brand risk | +2 to +4/9 |
| Defensive pricing against open-source | Maintains enterprise stickiness; modest margin compression | Below-cost pricing; shareholder revolt; unsustainable | -1 to +1/9 |
| Major acquisition of AI startup/competitor | Clear strategic fit; talent retention plan; regulatory pathway | Antitrust scrutiny certain; >$20B without regulatory pre-clearance | -1 to +2/9 |
Big Tech-Specific Note: If a participant proposes decisions related to foundation model training, frontier model development, or AI lab operations, redirect: "Big Tech scope in this exercise covers cloud, advertising, devices, and enterprise software. AI lab and model development dynamics are introduced via facilitator injects. Please reframe your decision within the Big Tech scope."
B2B/B2C SaaS#
Key tensions: AI feature integration pressure, pricing model disruption, competitive threat from AI-native startups, margin compression from AI infrastructure costs, customer retention vs. upsell.
| Decision Type | Plausible IF | Red-Flag IF | Typical Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bundle AI copilots into standard product | Maintains lock-in; execution proven | No revenue offset; margin erosion >5% | +1 to +2/9 |
| Premium AI tier (30-50% price increase) | Differentiated features; customer demand validated | Untested pricing; customer churn risk | +2 to +3/9 |
| AI-native vertical product launch | Validated market; existing customer base | Unproven market; competing against specialized startups | +1 to +2/9 |
How to Use This Document During Scoring#
- Participant proposes decision. Record WHO/WHAT/WHERE/WHEN/HOW/HOW MUCH/RISK and band classification (Spend, Time, Complexity, Dependency, Scale).
- Map to archetype. Which of the 15 does this fall into?
- Check industry-specific tree. Does the industry have specific plausibility guidance? (See industry trees above.)
- Check band red-flag combination. Does the band combo trigger a red-flag?
- If NO red-flag band combo: Score using default bands {-2, 0, +2}. Use band-to-score translation table (Adjudication Rules). Total typically ranges -6 to +6.
- If YES red-flag band combo: Unlock +/-3 exception scoring. Reference the plausibility check to calibrate final score. Total can range -9 to +9.
- Reference plausibility check. If band combo is questionable, guide participant toward narrower scope, longer timeline, lower complexity, or lower spend.
- Post score. Explain your decision concisely to participant (reference bands that drove score).
- Move on. No deep debate on edge cases; next decision.
Summary Table: Archetypes -> Band Red-Flags -> Can Score +/-3?#
| Archetype | Red-Flag Band Combo | Can Score +/-3? |
|---|---|---|
| Deploy AI System | Global/National + 0-3mo; OR High/Very High complexity + no pilot + <12mo | YES if timeline/complexity band mismatch is severe |
| Acquire Competitor | Existential spend + <3mo close; OR High integration + <6mo | YES if regulatory existential risk or deal structure unsound |
| Cut Headcount | Transformational + >30% in <6mo + no severance | YES if labor backlash + execution collapse |
| Exit Market | Existential spend (core asset) + no buyer + fire-sale | YES if fire-sale destroys value or strategic incoherence |
| Launch AI-Native Product | Transformational/Existential + 2+yr + unproven market fit | YES if market fit crystallizes or completely lacks validation |
| Form Alliance | Material/Transformational + no partner identified + vague scope | YES if only path forward but partner doesn't exist |
| Build Proprietary AI | Transformational/Existential + Very High complexity + no talent | YES if talent gap unbridgeable or ROI completely unclear |
| Deploy Autonomous | Global/National + High/Very High + no rollback + mission-critical | YES if catastrophic failure risk (systemic) |
| Major Org Restructure | Transformational + Very High complexity + >50% changes + no change mgmt | YES if org capability collapses |
| Aggressive Pricing | Material/Transformational + commodity market + below-cost band | YES if self-destructive pricing certain |
| Build Data Capability | Transformational + 1-2yr+ + Very High complexity + no talent | YES if talent shortage severe or build technically unfeasible |
| Pivot to New Market | Transformational + 1-2yr + High complexity + abandons core advantage | YES if abandons core advantage or market unvalidated |
| Geographic Expansion | Transformational/Existential + Global scale + geopolitical risk band | YES if geopolitical hostility severe |
| Invest in Defense | Material + purely defensive (no offensive upside) | YES if prevents existential tail risk or unnecessary |
| Wait & See | Material/Transformational + market accelerating + competitors moving | YES if market passes you by permanently |
Use this as a quick reference during live facilitation. If a red-flag fires, reference the plausibility check to calibrate the +/-3 exception score. Do not overthink; move briskly.