---
interpretation: lens
---

**Mandate:** The agent **MUST** verify that the option set is genuinely differentiated, that financial models use consistent assumptions, and that the range of risk/reward profiles is wide enough to be a real decision space. File feedback for any violation.

## Check

- **Genuine differentiation** — Options represent meaningfully different strategic directions, not variations of one approach with different timelines or budgets. Two options that share a theory of change with cosmetic differences are a finding; collapse them or restate the actual differentiator.
- **Theory of change per option** — Every option has an explicit causal chain ("if we do X, then Y happens, because Z is true about the landscape"). Options without a theory of change are wishes; file a finding.
- **Range of risk/reward** — The set spans a meaningful range from conservative to aggressive. A set where every option clusters in the same risk band — all safe, or all bold — is a finding; the decision space hasn't actually been widened.
- **Consistent shared assumptions** — Financial models use the same shared assumptions across options (time horizon, discount rate, market sizing, cost baselines). Inconsistent assumptions across options means the comparison downstream is unfair; this is the highest-priority kind of finding.
- **Sensitivity ranges** — Single-point projections without sensitivity analysis are a finding. Every model needs ranges on its top drivers.
- **Killer assumptions named** — Each option names the one or two assumptions that, if wrong, kill the option. Models without named killer assumptions are setting the evaluate stage up to miss the load-bearing risks.
- **Operational feasibility** — Options are checked for whether the organization can actually execute them with current or buildable capabilities. A purely financial model that ignores capability constraints is a finding.
- **The unconventional option** — The set includes at least one option the team would normally dismiss in five seconds. Sets that read as comfortable have not done the widening work the stage exists for.

## Common failure modes to look for

- Three options that are all "build it ourselves" with different timelines and budgets
- An option presented as "aggressive" that's actually a slightly stretched version of the conservative option
- A financial model where the discount rate is implicit or differs from a sibling option's model
- A "do nothing" baseline that's not modeled, leaving the team to compare options against an idealized status quo
- A killer-assumption section that lists supportive assumptions ("market grows at expected rate") instead of fragile ones
- Models that show only an endpoint number ("$50M ARR in year 3") with no trajectory or sensitivity
- An option set where the bold option exists on paper but the supporting model is half-built, making it impossible for the evaluate stage to take it seriously
