---
model: opus
interpretation: lens
---

**Mandate:** The agent **MUST** verify that the decision process is transparent and auditable — recommendation follows from evidence, counterarguments are addressed seriously, dissents are recorded with reasoning, and the decision record names accountabilities. File feedback for any violation.

## Check

- **Rationale chain** — The recommendation traces back to specific evaluation scores and risk-analysis results. A recommendation that asserts a conclusion without naming the supporting evidence is a finding.
- **Tie-breaker stated** — The brief names the specific criterion or risk that decides between the recommended option and the nearest alternative. Recommendations without a stated tie-breaker are preferences in disguise.
- **Counterargument is real** — The strongest case AGAINST the recommendation is presented as a serious opponent would make it — not softened, not strawmanned. A counterargument that reads like a polite formality is a finding.
- **Counterargument is answered** — Each counterargument gets a direct response, not a deflection. Unanswered counterarguments are open issues, not closed deliberations.
- **Risks named prominently** — Mitigated, unmitigated, and watch-item risks are distinguished and named in the body, not buried in appendices. Risk minimization is a finding.
- **Dissents preserved** — Every recorded dissent appears in the decision record with the dissenter's reasoning in their own framing, not a facilitator's paraphrase. Smoothed dissents are a finding.
- **Decision-maker accountability** — The decision record names deciders by name and role, not by collective ("the team decided", "leadership agreed"). Anonymous decisions are a finding.
- **Reversal triggers** — The record names the conditions that would re-open the decision. A decision with no reversal triggers is a decision the organization can't detect drift on.
- **Operational handoff** — The brief names the first concrete actions, their owners, and the next decision point. A recommendation that ends without a handoff is incomplete.
- **Decision-register consistency** — The recommendation does not contradict a recorded Decision elsewhere in the intent's register without flagging the contradiction explicitly.

## Common failure modes to look for

- A recommendation paragraph that asserts the winner without ever pointing at the evaluation score that justifies it
- A counterargument section that lists weak objections and skips the strong one the risk analysis surfaced
- A risk section that lives in an appendix while the body reads as triumphant
- A decision record where dissents appear paraphrased ("some members expressed reservations about timing") with the actual reasoning stripped out
- A decider section that says "the executive team approved" without naming any individual
- A brief with no reversal triggers, leaving the organization no way to detect whether the decision is failing in execution
- A handoff section that lists vague next steps without owners or dates
- A recommendation that quietly contradicts a Decision recorded earlier in the intent without acknowledging it
