Opportunity Cost Surfacing

batch: First Iteration/Batch 10

Forgone Alternative Surfacing

notes: Emphasizes the concrete alternative that becomes unavailable, delayed, or degraded by the chosen commitment.

Hidden Sacrifice Visibility

notes: Plain-language alias for making the displacement caused by a decision visible before the commitment is made.

Cost-of-Choice Visibility

notes: Useful as a search alias but less precise because it can include direct costs, not only forgone alternatives.

What Are We Not Doing? Prompt

notes: Common implementation prompt rather than the canonical archetype name.

Opportunity Cost

role: Names the core displacement logic: choosing one use of scarce capacity sacrifices the best viable alternative use.

Resource Management

role: Frames time, attention, money, capacity, credibility, and other finite assets as allocable resources rather than free inputs.

Trade-Offs

role: Captures the unavoidable exchange between what is chosen and what is displaced, deferred, degraded, or abandoned.

Counterfactual Reasoning

role: Supports asking what would be possible if the chosen commitment were not made.

Bounded Rationality

role: Explains why decision-makers often focus on the visible option and neglect alternatives when attention is limited.

Accountability

slug: accountability

role: Makes the sacrificed alternative part of the decision record so commitments can be reviewed later.

Transparency

slug: transparency

role: Turns hidden displacement into visible information for stakeholders, reviewers, and future decision-makers.

Marginal Analysis

role: Provides a neighboring lens for comparing the next unit of resource across uses without making this archetype only a marginal calculation method.

Cost-Benefit Analysis

role: Names an adjacent evaluation method that may include opportunity cost but is broader than the surfacing intervention itself.

Loss Aversion

role: Explains a common failure mode: visible losses from cancellation may be overweighted while invisible forgone alternatives are ignored.

Time Preference

role: Helps distinguish immediate visible gains from delayed or displaced future value.

components:
Scarce Resource Frame
Viable Alternative Set
Best Forgone Alternative
Forgone Value Estimate
Commitment Boundary
Decision Rationale Record
Review Trigger
Decision Owner
Stakeholder Visibility Channel
Uncertainty Annotation
Cancellation or Reallocation Path
Comparison Baseline

mechanisms:
Opportunity-Cost Prompt
Alternative Enumeration Checklist
Decision Rationale Template
Calendar Allocation Review
Portfolio Tradeoff Review
Capital Budgeting Comparison
Project Kill Criteria
Attention Budget Audit
Policy Alternative Analysis

essence_one_line: Make the best forgone alternative explicit so choices account for what they displace.

compression_statement: When a decision appears costless because only the chosen option is visible, identify the scarce resource, name the best viable alternative being displaced, and incorporate that sacrifice into the commitment decision.

core_intuition: A choice can look attractive when evaluated alone. Opportunity Cost Surfacing changes the frame from 'Is this good?' to 'Is this better than the best thing this same resource could do instead?' The intervention works by making invisible displacement concrete enough that commitments can be accepted knowingly, redesigned, deferred, or rejected.

canonical_formula: scarce_resource + viable_alternatives + best_forgone_alternative + decision_rationale + review_trigger -> accountable_allocation

structural_problem: Resources, time, attention, capacity, or legitimacy are committed without visibility into the most valuable alternative being displaced, so choices appear cheaper or more harmless than they are.

condition: A proposed option consumes a resource that could be used elsewhere.

signal: The decision discussion focuses on the merits of the option rather than what it will crowd out.

condition: The best alternative is absent from the room, dashboard, calendar, or budget view.

signal: Stakeholders say yes to new commitments without naming what will be paused, delayed, degraded, or unfunded.

condition: Each commitment is individually defensible but collectively excessive.

signal: Backlogs grow, attention fragments, recurring work crowds out strategic work, or low-priority projects survive by inertia.

condition: The sacrificed option is delayed, diffuse, politically quiet, or owned by someone else.

signal: Visible requesters win against invisible future needs, maintenance, learning, recovery, resilience, or marginalized stakeholders.

condition: Existing commitments continue without renewed comparison against current alternatives.

signal: Past decisions remain funded or scheduled even after better uses of the same resource emerge.

symptom: Hidden sacrifice

description: The chosen option is described as beneficial, but the alternative it displaces is unnamed.

symptom: Default yes bias

description: Requests are accepted because they seem reasonable in isolation, not because they beat the best alternative use.

symptom: Overcommitment

description: The system keeps adding obligations without explicitly releasing capacity from lower-value commitments.

symptom: Priority drift

description: Strategically important but less urgent work is repeatedly displaced by visible or politically salient demands.

symptom: Post hoc regret

description: After resources are consumed, stakeholders realize what was delayed, neglected, or made impossible.

symptom: Perpetual continuation

description: Existing projects, meetings, policies, or routines continue because their ongoing opportunity cost is not reopened.

root_tension: A resource commitment can create visible benefits while hiding the value of the alternative it prevents. The chosen option is concrete and advocated; the forgone option is counterfactual, delayed, and often politically weaker.

case: The resource is genuinely abundant for all viable alternatives.

reason: If no meaningful displacement occurs, opportunity cost is not the central issue.

case: The decision requires mapping many simultaneous objective tradeoffs.

reason: Tradeoff Surface Mapping or constrained allocation may fit better when the main task is comparing multiple dimensions rather than naming the best displaced alternative.

case: The alternative set is unknowable and the only issue is uncertainty.

reason: Uncertainty, scenario planning, or robust selection patterns may be more central if no credible alternatives can be named.

case: The problem is enforcing a hard capacity limit.

reason: Rate limiting, priority-based admission, capacity reservation, or work-in-progress limiting may be better when the intervention is admission control rather than displacement visibility.

case: The concern is direct harm from an option rather than what it displaces.

reason: Risk assessment, safety guardrails, or therapeutic window management may be more appropriate when direct side effects dominate.

structural_intervention: Reframe the decision around the scarce resource it consumes; enumerate viable alternative uses; select the best forgone alternative; estimate the value being displaced; and make that sacrifice part of the decision record, admission rule, or review cadence.

step: Name the scarce resource.

logic: Specify what is being consumed or bound: funds, time, attention, execution capacity, physical capacity, political capital, risk budget, trust, or future option value.

step: State the commitment boundary.

logic: Define how much of the resource is being committed, for how long, with what reversibility, and whether partial or staged commitment is possible.

step: Enumerate viable alternatives.

logic: List realistic uses of the same resource, including maintenance, rest, resilience, learning, deferred work, or underrepresented stakeholder needs.

step: Identify the best forgone alternative.

logic: Choose the strongest credible alternative that would be displaced if the proposed decision proceeds.

step: Estimate forgone value.

logic: Describe what is lost, degraded, delayed, or made riskier by not choosing the alternative.

step: Make the sacrifice decision-relevant.

logic: Require the decision-maker to accept, reject, redesign, defer, stage, or cancel the proposal in light of the named alternative.

step: Record assumptions and review triggers.

logic: Capture why the chosen trade was acceptable and when the choice must be reopened as alternatives, scarcity, or context change.

rule: Do not accept a resource-consuming commitment until the best forgone alternative is named.

example: A team cannot add a roadmap item without naming which item, maintenance task, or discovery effort will move down.

rule: Treat hidden alternatives as evidence of an incomplete decision, not as proof that no sacrifice exists.

example: A policy memo that lists only benefits is returned for a displaced-alternative statement.

rule: Escalate the review when the forgone alternative is strategically critical, safety-related, irreversible, or politically underrepresented.

example: A hospital staffing change receives additional review if it displaces surge readiness or patient safety work.

rule: Prefer staged or reversible commitments when opportunity-cost estimates are uncertain.

example: A large capital allocation begins as a pilot until the displaced alternative can be better compared.

rule: Reopen long-running commitments when the value of alternatives changes materially.

example: A recurring meeting is removed when the team's best forgone use of that time becomes incident prevention work.

invariant: The scarce resource remains explicitly named.

reason: Without a resource frame, the opportunity cost cannot be grounded.

invariant: The best forgone alternative is concrete enough to challenge the choice.

reason: A vague statement such as 'we could do other things' does not create decision discipline.

invariant: The surfaced alternative can affect action.

reason: The archetype fails if it produces documentation but never changes acceptance, cancellation, staging, or reallocation.

invariant: Decision records preserve the accepted sacrifice and assumptions.

reason: Later review depends on knowing which alternative was knowingly forgone and why.

invariant: The process does not become exhaustive comparison for every trivial choice.

reason: Opportunity-cost surfacing should be proportionate to scarcity, reversibility, and stakes.

outcome: More disciplined allocation

description: Resources move toward options that beat the best credible alternative rather than merely sounding good in isolation.

outcome: Reduced overcommitment

description: New obligations are paired with explicit displacement, release, or deferral decisions.

outcome: Better cancellation and stopping decisions

description: Ongoing commitments can be ended when their opportunity cost becomes too high.

outcome: Greater stakeholder trust

description: Affected parties can see why an alternative was not chosen, even when they disagree with the choice.

outcome: Protection for quiet but important work

description: Maintenance, resilience, learning, recovery, and future options become visible competitors rather than silent casualties.

prose_essence:
Opportunity Cost Surfacing is the intervention of making a choice answer for what it displaces. It is not enough to ask whether a proposed option is beneficial. The archetype asks whether that option is worth more than the best credible use of the same scarce resource.

The core move is deceptively simple: name the resource, name the best forgone alternative, and make that sacrifice visible before the commitment becomes accepted, budgeted, scheduled, staffed, or politically locked in. This changes the decision from a one-option evaluation into an accountable allocation choice.

prose_when_to_use:
Use this archetype when people are saying yes to reasonable options one at a time, but the system is losing something important in the aggregate. It is especially useful when the sacrificed alternative is quiet, delayed, diffuse, politically underrepresented, or difficult to measure.

Strong use cases include project intake, roadmap planning, budget allocation, meeting review, public policy selection, research portfolio planning, and long-running commitments that continue by inertia. The archetype is weaker when there is no meaningful scarcity, no viable alternative, or no ability to change the commitment after the opportunity cost becomes visible.

prose_structural_problem:
The structural problem is asymmetric visibility. The chosen option is usually concrete: it has a requester, a proposal, a deadline, and a visible benefit. The alternative it displaces is counterfactual: it is what could have happened if the same capacity had been used differently.

Because the forgone alternative is absent, a choice can look costless even when it consumes scarce execution capacity, attention, institutional credibility, political capital, recovery time, or future flexibility. This produces overcommitment, priority drift, and regret: not because the chosen option was bad, but because it was never compared against the best thing it prevented.

prose_intervention_logic:
The intervention begins by refusing to evaluate the option in isolation. First, name the scarce resource. Then define the commitment boundary: amount, duration, scope, reversibility, and exclusivity. Next, identify viable alternatives that could use the same resource. From those, name the best forgone alternative and estimate the value lost by not choosing it.

The decisive step is making the surfaced cost actionable. The decision-maker must be able to accept the sacrifice explicitly, redesign the commitment, defer it, narrow it, stage it, cancel something else, or reject the proposal. If nothing can change, the process becomes documentation rather than an intervention.

prose_key_components:
### Scarce Resource Frame

**Required component.** Identifies the finite resource being consumed, such as time, money, attention, headcount, capacity, political capital, trust, or execution bandwidth. The archetype only matters when the resource cannot be used for all desirable options at once. Without a scarcity frame, the decision appears free and the displacement logic disappears.

### Viable Alternative Set

**Required component.** Collects the realistic options that could use the same scarce resource if the proposed commitment were not made. The alternative set should exclude fantasy options and include options that are operationally available enough to make the sacrifice real.

### Best Forgone Alternative

**Required component.** Names the most valuable alternative displaced by the chosen option. This is the distinctive component of the archetype. The point is not to list every possible loss, but to identify the strongest credible alternative that gives the choice its real cost.

### Forgone Value Estimate

**Required component.** Describes the value, benefit, risk reduction, learning, readiness, or stakeholder outcome lost when the best alternative is displaced. The estimate may be quantitative, qualitative, ordinal, or scenario-based. Precision is useful, but the primary function is visibility and comparability.

### Commitment Boundary

**Required component.** Specifies what resource commitment is actually being made, including amount, duration, scope, reversibility, and exclusivity. Opportunity cost changes when a commitment is temporary, reversible, partial, shareable, or binding. The boundary prevents vague decisions from hiding their real displacement effects.

### Decision Rationale Record

**Required component.** Captures the chosen option, the best forgone alternative, the reason the trade was accepted, and the assumptions that made the choice legitimate. This record creates accountability. It allows later review to distinguish a reasonable decision under known alternatives from an impulsive or politically concealed allocation.

### Review Trigger

**Required component.** Defines when the opportunity-cost assessment must be reopened because the chosen option, alternative value, scarcity condition, or strategic context has changed. Surfacing opportunity cost once is not enough for long-running commitments. Review triggers prevent stale commitments from continuing after their displaced alternatives become more valuable.

### Decision Owner

**Optional component.** Assigns responsibility for naming alternatives, accepting the sacrifice, and reopening the decision when triggers fire. Without ownership, opportunity-cost surfacing can become a decorative checklist rather than a decision-changing intervention.

### Stakeholder Visibility Channel

**Optional component.** Shows affected parties which alternative is being displaced and why the trade is considered acceptable. This is especially useful when the costs of a decision fall on people who are not present in the choice meeting.

### Uncertainty Annotation

**Optional component.** Marks confidence, unknowns, and scenario sensitivity in the estimate of the forgone alternative's value. A visible alternative may still be uncertain. Annotating uncertainty prevents false precision while keeping the alternative in view.

### Cancellation or Reallocation Path

**Optional component.** Defines how resources can be reclaimed, redirected, or released if the opportunity cost becomes unacceptable. The archetype is strongest when surfacing displacement can actually change commitments, not just produce regret.

### Comparison Baseline

**Optional component.** Provides a reference option such as do nothing, continue current allocation, pause, defer, or fund the next-best initiative. A baseline stabilizes comparison and reduces the tendency to evaluate only the proposed option in isolation.

prose_common_mechanisms:
Mechanisms implement the archetype; they are not the archetype itself. A prompt, checklist, budget memo, or portfolio review only counts as Opportunity Cost Surfacing when it makes a displaced alternative visible enough to affect commitment.

### Opportunity-Cost Prompt

**Mechanism type:** checklist. Adds a required question to a decision process, such as 'What is the best thing we will not do if we choose this?' This is the lightest implementation. It works by adding one targeted question before commitment. It is useful when the decision is too small for a formal analysis but large enough that saying yes will crowd something else out.

### Alternative Enumeration Checklist

**Mechanism type:** checklist. Forces the decision process to generate credible alternatives before judging the chosen option. This mechanism protects against option blindness. It does not decide by itself; it ensures the decision has a credible comparison set before the best forgone alternative is selected.

### Decision Rationale Template

**Mechanism type:** template. Records the chosen option, displaced alternative, resource commitment, assumptions, and review trigger in a durable format. The template turns the surfaced opportunity cost into institutional memory. It lets later reviewers ask whether the original sacrifice was accepted knowingly and whether the assumptions still hold.

### Calendar Allocation Review

**Mechanism type:** ritual. Makes the opportunity cost of meetings, deadlines, and recurring commitments visible in time and attention systems. This ritual applies the archetype to time and attention. It converts recurring calendar items from defaults into claims on scarce attention that must beat their best alternative use.

### Portfolio Tradeoff Review

**Mechanism type:** procedure. Reviews active initiatives as a portfolio so adding or continuing one commitment explicitly displaces another. This procedure works when many commitments compete at once. It surfaces displacement across the whole portfolio so new or continuing items do not silently starve higher-value work.

### Capital Budgeting Comparison

**Mechanism type:** method. Compares proposed capital uses against the next-best use of funds, capacity, or risk-bearing ability. This method applies the archetype to capital, liquidity, debt capacity, and management attention. It is not merely a financial calculation unless it names the next-best use that will be forgone.

### Project Kill Criteria

**Mechanism type:** protocol. Defines conditions under which a project should stop because the value of alternatives now exceeds the value of continuing. Kill criteria implement the continuation variant. They make it possible to stop a commitment when the opportunity cost of continuing now exceeds the value of the project.

### Attention Budget Audit

**Mechanism type:** method. Identifies what important work, learning, relationship, or risk monitoring is displaced by current demands on attention. This mechanism addresses invisible cognitive scarcity. It asks what monitoring, creativity, recovery, relationship, or learning work is being displaced by current attention demands.

### Policy Alternative Analysis

**Mechanism type:** method. Requires a policy choice to name the public goods, constituencies, or outcomes displaced by the chosen intervention. This method implements the archetype in public or institutional choices by naming which public goods, constituencies, or future options are displaced by a policy commitment.

prose_failure_modes:
- **Token alternative naming:** A weak alternative is named only to satisfy the process. Mitigation: require the alternative to be viable and strong enough to challenge the choice.
- **Analysis paralysis:** The process becomes too heavy for ordinary decisions. Mitigation: scale review depth by stakes and scarcity.
- **Manipulated alternative set:** Advocates omit stronger alternatives. Mitigation: use independent review or stakeholder input for high-stakes choices.
- **Documentation without action:** The opportunity cost is recorded but cannot affect allocation. Mitigation: connect the record to intake gates, cancellation rules, funding decisions, or calendar removal.
- **Invisible stakeholder displacement:** Alternatives are defined only from the decision-maker's perspective. Mitigation: include affected stakeholders or visibility channels.
- **Sunk-cost persistence:** Existing commitments continue because past investment dominates attention. Mitigation: use continuation reviews and project kill criteria.

prose_neighbor_distinctions:
### Cost-Benefit Analysis

Cost-benefit analysis compares benefits and costs broadly; Opportunity Cost Surfacing specifically names the best alternative sacrificed by committing a scarce resource.

### Marginal Analysis

Marginal analysis compares the next increment of value or cost; Opportunity Cost Surfacing may use it, but can also govern whole commitments, calendars, policies, and portfolios.

### Tradeoff Surface Mapping

Tradeoff Surface Mapping maps multidimensional option consequences; Opportunity Cost Surfacing focuses on the best displaced alternative and its effect on commitment decisions.

### Constrained Resource Allocation

Constrained allocation optimizes or assigns resources under explicit constraints; Opportunity Cost Surfacing makes the forgone alternative visible before or during allocation.

### Resource Portfolio Balancing

Portfolio balancing distributes resources across categories and time horizons; Opportunity Cost Surfacing asks what each allocation displaces.

### Capacity Reservation

Capacity Reservation protects future or critical capacity from consumption; Opportunity Cost Surfacing reveals the best alternative consumed by a choice.

### Priority-Based Admission

Priority-based admission decides who or what may enter under capacity limits; Opportunity Cost Surfacing informs such admission by naming what would be displaced.

### Prioritization

Prioritization ranks options broadly; Opportunity Cost Surfacing is narrower and requires explicit displacement visibility.

prose_cross_domain_examples:
- **software engineering:** Before accepting a feature request, a team names the reliability improvement or technical-debt reduction that will be delayed.
- **executive calendar:** A recurring leadership meeting is kept only if it beats the best alternative use of the same time and attention.
- **capital allocation:** A company approves equipment spending after comparing it with the best forgone use of cash, debt capacity, and management attention.
- **education:** A curriculum committee adds a unit only after naming which practice, reflection, or foundational skill time it will displace.
- **public policy:** A transportation project proposal names the maintenance backlog, housing investment, or safety program that would remain unfunded.
- **personal planning:** A person accepts a weekend commitment only after naming the rest, family time, study, or repair work it will replace.

### Extended Example

A product organization receives a persuasive request for a new enterprise feature. In the old process, the team asks whether the feature is valuable, whether a major customer wants it, and whether engineering can estimate it. In Opportunity Cost Surfacing, the intake form first names the scarce resource: two engineering squads for six weeks plus product and support attention. The team lists viable alternatives using the same capacity: complete reliability work, build a self-service onboarding improvement, pay down integration debt, or conduct discovery on a new market segment. The best forgone alternative is the reliability work because incidents are increasing and support load is rising. The decision record states that accepting the feature means delaying reliability gains and carrying higher incident risk for at least one quarter. Leadership may still approve the feature, but now the decision is no longer framed as 'valuable feature versus nothing.' It is 'feature now versus reliability now,' with a review trigger if incident volume crosses a threshold.

prose_non_examples:
- **A team says a proposal is expensive because it costs $50,000 but does not compare it with the next-best use of the money.** This is direct cost awareness, not opportunity-cost surfacing.
- **A weighted scoring model ranks ten projects but does not name which current commitment each accepted project displaces.** The model may prioritize, but it does not make forgone alternatives action-relevant.
- **A safety review blocks an option because it violates a required standard.** The option fails an invariant; the central logic is a guardrail, not displacement comparison.
- **A brainstorming session lists many possible projects with no resource boundary or commitment decision.** Alternatives alone do not create opportunity-cost surfacing unless they compete for a scarce resource.

prose_tradeoffs: Opportunity Cost Surfacing improves decision discipline at the cost of decision friction. It can increase transparency, but transparency may surface conflict. It can improve comparability, but excessive quantification can create false precision. It can protect long-term priorities, but it may slow short-term responsiveness. The process must therefore be scaled to the stakes, scarcity, and reversibility of the commitment.

prose_invariants_to_preserve: The scarce resource must stay explicit. The best forgone alternative must be real enough to challenge the chosen option. The surfaced cost must be able to change action. The decision record must preserve why the sacrifice was accepted. The process must also remain proportionate: the archetype should prevent hidden sacrifice, not turn every small choice into an exhaustive optimization exercise.

prose_target_outcomes: The archetype aims for more disciplined allocation, fewer hidden sacrifices, reduced overcommitment, better cancellation decisions, and stronger legitimacy. It protects important but quiet work such as maintenance, recovery, learning, resilience, and long-term strategy by making those alternatives visible competitors for scarce resources.

prose_parameter_dimensions:
- **Depth of alternative search:** Small decisions may need one serious alternative; high-stakes decisions may need a structured alternative set.
- **Valuation granularity:** Forgone value may be qualitative, ordinal, monetary, probabilistic, or scenario-based. More precision is not always better if it creates false certainty.
- **Decision friction:** The process should add enough friction to prevent hidden sacrifice, but not so much that trivial choices become bureaucratic.
- **Reversibility:** Irreversible or long-running commitments need stronger opportunity-cost review than reversible or staged commitments.
- **Stakeholder scope:** If displaced alternatives affect absent stakeholders, the process needs more visibility and legitimacy.
- **Review cadence:** One-time choices may only need a predecision check; ongoing commitments need review triggers.
- **Action linkage:** The stronger the resource scarcity, the more directly the surfaced cost should connect to cancellation, deferral, or reallocation.

prose_variants_and_near_names:
### Predecision Opportunity-Cost Prompting

A lightweight prompt inserted before commitment to ask what the proposed choice would displace. Its distinctive feature is: It is deliberately minimal and works as a decision-friction device at the moment of choice. It remains under Opportunity Cost Surfacing because Its purpose is still to make the displaced alternative visible before resources are committed.

### Calendar and Attention Opportunity Review

Applies opportunity-cost surfacing to time, meetings, interruptions, and attention commitments. Its distinctive feature is: It treats time and attention as allocable resources whose displacement effects are easy to hide. It remains under Opportunity Cost Surfacing because It still surfaces the best forgone alternative caused by a commitment of scarce resource.

### Continuation Opportunity-Cost Review

Reopens the opportunity cost of continuing an existing commitment rather than only evaluating new choices. Its distinctive feature is: It targets stale commitments and continuation bias rather than only new intake. It remains under Opportunity Cost Surfacing because The intervention still asks what continuing now displaces and whether that sacrifice remains acceptable.

### Portfolio Displacement Review

Surfaces opportunity cost across a portfolio of projects, investments, policies, experiments, or responsibilities. Its distinctive feature is: It operates at portfolio scale, where opportunity cost appears through displacement, dilution, and underinvestment. It remains under Opportunity Cost Surfacing because The core logic remains naming the alternative value lost by current allocation.

### Public-Choice Opportunity-Cost Visibility

Makes the public goods, constituencies, or future options displaced by a policy choice visible to affected stakeholders. Its distinctive feature is: It emphasizes public accountability and distributional visibility. It remains under Opportunity Cost Surfacing because The intervention is still to make the forgone alternative decision-relevant.

Near names such as *forgone alternative review*, *hidden sacrifice surfacing*, and *what are we not doing prompt* should point back to this archetype or one of its variants. Mechanism names such as *attention budget audit* and *project kill criteria* should not be promoted unless they develop distinct cross-domain structures beyond surfacing the best forgone alternative.

Predecision Opportunity-Cost Prompting

short_definition: A lightweight prompt inserted before commitment to ask what the proposed choice would displace.

distinctive_feature: It is deliberately minimal and works as a decision-friction device at the moment of choice.

distinct_from_parent: The parent archetype includes full alternative identification, valuation, rationale, and review; this variant is the predecision prompt form.

still_same_parent_because: Its purpose is still to make the displaced alternative visible before resources are committed.

use_when: Decisions are frequent and relatively small.

use_when: The main failure is neglecting alternatives rather than needing a full portfolio review.

use_when: A simple prompt can change behavior before a commitment becomes sticky.

Scarce Resource Frame

role: Names the resource being consumed.

Best Forgone Alternative

role: Names the option displaced by commitment.

Opportunity-Cost Prompt

mechanism_type: checklist

Decision Rationale Template

mechanism_type: template

example_domains:
meetings
small budgets
feature requests
personal planning

domain: team operations

example: A meeting request form asks what work the meeting will displace.

domain: product

example: A feature request asks which roadmap item would move down if accepted.

failure_modes: Alternatives are named but not decision-relevant

name: Calendar and Attention Opportunity Review

short_definition: Applies opportunity-cost surfacing to time, meetings, interruptions, and attention commitments.

distinctive_feature: It treats time and attention as allocable resources whose displacement effects are easy to hide.

distinct_from_parent: The parent is resource-general; this variant emphasizes time-bound and attention-bound commitments.

still_same_parent_because: It still surfaces the best forgone alternative caused by a commitment of scarce resource.

use_when: The scarce resource is attention or calendar time.

use_when: Recurring commitments silently displace deep work, rest, learning, or relationship work.

use_when: Overcommitment appears because each request is evaluated alone.

Continuation Opportunity-Cost Review

distinctive_feature: It targets stale commitments and continuation bias rather than only new intake.

distinct_from_parent: The parent can apply before any commitment; this variant applies after a commitment has become established.

still_same_parent_because: The intervention still asks what continuing now displaces and whether that sacrifice remains acceptable.

use_when: A project, policy, habit, or allocation persists by inertia.

use_when: Past investment makes cancellation emotionally or politically hard.

use_when: The value of alternatives has changed since the original decision.

Portfolio Displacement Review

distinct_from_parent: The parent can govern a single decision; this variant governs many simultaneous commitments.

still_same_parent_because: The core logic remains naming the alternative value lost by current allocation.

use_when: Resources are spread across many active commitments.

use_when: Adding one item silently starves another rather than triggering an explicit tradeoff.

use_when: Leadership must choose what to stop, pause, defer, or underfund.

distinctive_feature: It emphasizes public accountability and distributional visibility.

distinct_from_parent: The parent is cross-domain; this variant adds governance visibility, constituency effects, and public rationale requirements.

still_same_parent_because: The intervention is still to make the forgone alternative decision-relevant.

use_when: The decision allocates public funds, enforcement capacity, land, attention, or institutional legitimacy.

use_when: Displaced alternatives affect people who are not represented in the decision room.

use_when: Legitimacy depends on explaining not only what is funded, but what is not funded.

near_names:
Opportunity-Cost Prompt
Forgone Alternative Review
Hidden Sacrifice Surfacing
Attention Budget Audit
What Are We Not Doing? Prompt


type: archetype

source: generated

batch: Batch 04

aliases:
Niche-Structured Diversification
Adaptive Specialization Fan-Out
Opportunity-Space Radiation
Radiation Portfolio Design

slug: diversity

slug: specialization

slug: adaptation

slug: competition

slug: modularity

slug: interoperability

slug: feedback

slug: observability

slug: uncertainty

slug: constraint

slug: boundedness

slug: resilience

slug: pruning

slug: versioning

components:
Opportunity-Opening Signal
Branch Scope
Niche Structure Map
Mutable Candidate Population
Specialization Hypothesis
Divergence Rule
Branch Identifier
Protected Specialization Lane
Exploration Budget
Niche-Fit Criterion
Diversity Floor
Compatibility Constraint
Lineage and Rationale Log
Performance Evidence Capture
Variant Comparison Frame
Feedback and Selection Loop
Crowding and Saturation Monitor
Rebalancing Cadence
Selective Retention Rule
Consolidation Pathway
Exit or Prune Rule
Recombination Interface
Phase Plan
Constraint and Safety Envelope
Dominance and Capture Monitor
Provenance Trace
Transfer or Scaling Pathway
Rollback or Reactivation Option

mechanisms:
Opportunity Landscape Mapping
Niche Portfolio Matrix
Specialization Cohort Seeding
Diversity Coverage Matrix
protected_pilot_lane
Parallel Pilot Trials
Stage-Gate Exploration
Experimental Cohort Split
Diversity-Floor Rate Boost
Lineage–Niche Fit Dashboard
Innovation Portfolio Review
Multi-Criteria Selection Rubric
Network Mixing Protocol
Saturation and Crowding Review
Preserve–Prune–Recombine Review
Merge and Deprecation Plan

essence_one_line: When a newly accessible opportunity space contains several distinct niches, fan a varied source into protected specialist lineages, learn quickly, and consolidate only when niches fill or evidence stabilizes.

compression_statement: A genuinely new opportunity can be lost in two opposite ways: one early generalist captures the whole space before alternatives learn, or uncontrolled proliferation fragments resources into redundant variants. Validate the opening; bound and map the opportunity space; confirm enough source variation; define a shared safety and compatibility core; seed several lineages with distinct specialization hypotheses; protect them through a minimum evidence window; measure niche-specific fit, portfolio contribution, externalities, and crowding; rebalance resources as evidence arrives; and shift from radiation to preservation, pruning, scaling, trait transfer, or recombination when marginal niche value falls and coordination costs rise.

core_intuition: Newly opened spaces reward speed and variety, but useful variety must be structured. The point is not to create many versions. It is to let different lines adapt to different opportunity conditions long enough to reveal fit, while preserving common guardrails and a later route out of proliferation.

canonical_formula: Apply only when Opportunity Opening O, Source Variability V, and Niche Structure N are jointly sufficient. During radiation, maximize distinct niche learning subject to shared invariants and a bounded exploration budget. Transition to consolidation when marginal niche coverage and learning fall below crowding, externality, and coordination costs; then preserve, scale, prune, pause, transfer, or recombine each lineage by evidence.

structural_problem: A new resource, platform, habitat, market, mission, regulatory opening, or institutional vacancy creates several distinct opportunity pockets, but the system lacks a governed way to diversify rapidly and then stop. A dominant early design may occupy every niche by default; nominally different branches may chase the same opportunity; specialists may be standardized before they learn; or proliferating lineages may continue after the space is saturated. The result is premature lock-in, wasted exploration, fragmented infrastructure, hidden common-mode dependence, or permanent pilot sprawl.

trigger_conditions: A material change opens access to resources, users, habitats, missions, technologies, jurisdictions, or capabilities that were previously unavailable or uneconomic.

trigger_conditions: The opportunity space contains several separable niches with meaningfully different conditions of success.

trigger_conditions: A source population, team base, design family, or capability pool has enough variation to generate distinct specialist lineages.

trigger_conditions: Timing matters because opportunities may be occupied, close, degrade, or become locked around early choices.

trigger_conditions: A shared core of safety, rights, integrity, interoperability, or ecological constraints can be preserved while niche-facing traits diverge.

trigger_conditions: Niche fit, learning, crowding, and resource use can be observed well enough to support rebalancing and phase transition.

symptoms: Every new initiative is a cosmetic copy aimed at the same attractive niche.

symptoms: A first mover or incumbent generalist defines the whole opportunity space before alternatives receive an evidence window.

symptoms: Several important niches remain unserved while resources crowd into one fashionable segment.

symptoms: Teams or variants are forced onto one global metric that penalizes legitimate specialization.

symptoms: Lineages lose provenance, making it impossible to tell which traits or assumptions produced fit.

symptoms: Shared infrastructure, interfaces, rights, or ecological limits fracture as branches optimize locally.

symptoms: New branches keep appearing after marginal learning declines and coordination load rises.

symptoms: Consolidation means selecting one winner and discarding all other learning or essential niche coverage.

symptoms: A portfolio contains many names but one common dependency, founder group, technology stack, or failure mode.

root_tension: Rapid opportunity capture favors early fan-out and local autonomy; reliable learning, fairness, interoperability, and long-term coherence favor bounded variation, common evidence, and eventual consolidation. Specialization creates fit but also lock-in, fragmentation, dependency, and crowding.

anti_signatures: Only one feasible opportunity or one mandatory standard exists; do not manufacture niches to justify proliferation.

anti_signatures: Parallel versions are expected to reconverge into one shared mainline; use Branching and Merging.

anti_signatures: The main problem is how much random or deliberate variation to introduce; use Adaptive Mutation Rate Management.

anti_signatures: The trigger is declining marginal return in one established approach rather than a newly opened opportunity; use Diminishing Returns Diversification.

anti_signatures: Alternatives already exist and the task is only to select and consolidate them; use Variation Consolidation and Feature Selection.

anti_signatures: The task is to preserve plural options against homogenization pressure without a new opportunity opening; use Artificial Diversity Introduction During Homogenization Pressure.

anti_signatures: The task is to assign existing work by opportunity cost; use Comparative Advantage Specialization.

anti_signatures: The opportunity cannot be bounded or observed and experimentation would expose people, ecosystems, or essential services to unacceptable irreversible harm.

structural_intervention: Create a time-bounded diversification regime around a validated opportunity opening. Map distinct niches, preserve a common invariant core, seed traceable specialist lineages from a varied source, protect independent learning, compare lineages with both niche-specific and common evidence, monitor crowding and externalities, rebalance resources, and govern the transition from rapid fan-out to a stable portfolio of preserved, scaled, merged, paused, or retired lines.

action_logic: Validate the opportunity-opening signal and record what changed, what became accessible, and what evidence would close or disconfirm the opening.

action_logic: Bound the opportunity space, map niches, dependencies, occupants, constraints, affected parties, and uncertainty.

action_logic: Audit source variability and founder concentration; do not start a radiation regime if every seed shares the same assumptions or failure mode.

action_logic: Define the shared invariant core: safety, rights, integrity, ecological limits, interoperability, data standards, and minimum service obligations.

action_logic: Create distinct specialization hypotheses and assign each lineage a stable identity, lane, owner, evidence window, and bounded resource envelope.

action_logic: Protect early diversity against premature standardization while preventing protected lanes from becoming permanent unaccountable silos.

action_logic: Collect niche-specific fit evidence together with common guardrail, externality, learning, resource, and dependency measures.

action_logic: Rebalance resources on a declared cadence, preserving minority or long-horizon options until their evidence window matures.

action_logic: Enable controlled trait transfer and recombination where learning is portable, without forcing all successful lines into a single mainline.

action_logic: Monitor crowding, redundancy, resource congestion, capture, and declining marginal niche value to decide when the radiation phase should end.

action_logic: Run a preserve–prune–recombine review and support fair transitions, retained option value, provenance, and reactivation triggers.

decision_rules: Do not authorize fan-out unless opportunity opening, source variability, and niche separability are all above a stated minimum.

decision_rules: Bound the number of active lineages by distinct niche hypotheses, evidence capacity, observability, and the exploration budget—not by enthusiasm alone.

decision_rules: Require every lineage to state what it will do differently, why that should fit its niche, and what evidence would disconfirm the hypothesis.

decision_rules: Keep shared safety, rights, integrity, and interoperability constraints non-negotiable even when niche metrics differ.

decision_rules: Protect a lineage through a minimum evidence window unless it violates a hard guardrail or its niche disappears.

decision_rules: Prune or merge on niche fit, portfolio contribution, externalities, redundancy, and future option value rather than current popularity or sponsor power.

decision_rules: Transition out of radiation when marginal niche coverage and learning fall below crowding, coordination, externality, and maintenance costs.

decision_rules: Retain or reactivate dormant lineages when they preserve resilience or when a material environmental change reopens the niche.

target_invariants: Lineage identity and provenance remain traceable across divergence, trait transfer, scaling, and consolidation.

target_invariants: A common minimum of safety, rights, data integrity, ecological responsibility, and interoperability remains intact.

target_invariants: Niche-specific evaluation does not erase common guardrails or make evidence incomparable.

target_invariants: The exploration budget is bounded and does not silently consume essential operating capacity.

target_invariants: Affected parties can see, challenge, and influence niche definitions and externality judgments when material.

target_invariants: Closing a lineage includes fair transition, retained learning, and explicit handling of dependencies and obligations.

target_invariants: No lineage gains permanent control merely because it entered first or owns shared infrastructure.

expected_outcomes: Faster and broader learning during genuine opportunity openings.

expected_outcomes: More distinct and better-fitting specialist responses rather than cosmetic variants.

expected_outcomes: Lower premature lock-in to the first generalist or most powerful sponsor.

expected_outcomes: Visible niche gaps, redundancy, common-mode dependence, and crowding.

expected_outcomes: A controlled path from exploratory proliferation to a sustainable plural portfolio.

expected_outcomes: Better retention and transfer of useful traits and lessons from retired lineages.

expected_outcomes: Improved resilience through meaningful—not merely nominal—diversity.

prose_tradeoffs:
Rapid fan-out improves coverage and learning but consumes evidence capacity and resources. Specialist autonomy improves fit but can fragment infrastructure and accountability. Niche-specific metrics respect context but can make comparison difficult. Consolidation improves efficiency but can destroy resilience, minority coverage, and future option value.

The archetype should therefore be temporary as a **radiation regime**, even when several specialist lineages persist afterward.

Vacancy-Driven Adaptive Radiation

variant_type: subtype

short_definition: Use a bounded diversification burst when exit, collapse, disturbance, or removal opens several previously occupied niches at once.

distinctive_feature: The opportunity opening is created by vacancy or disturbance, so speed, founder effects, restoration duties, and capture risk are unusually strong.

distinct_from_parent: The parent covers any newly opened structured opportunity. This subtype requires an explicit vacancy event, incumbent legacy analysis, and controls against founder capture and harmful replacement.

still_same_parent_because: The same opportunity signal, niche map, specialization lanes, fit evidence, crowding monitor, and consolidation transition govern the response.

use_when: An incumbent, dominant species, supplier, institution, or platform has exited or been removed.

use_when: Several distinct needs or resource positions become accessible simultaneously.

use_when: A rapid first-mover scramble could lock the space around one poorly tested lineage.

use_when: Restoration, market-entry, or service continuity requires several specialist responses rather than one replacement.

example_domains:
ecological restoration
supplier replacement
post-incumbent markets
institutional reform

domain: ecological restoration

example: After removal of an invasive species, several native functional groups are established across distinct microhabitats instead of installing one uniform replacement.

domain: supplier ecosystem

example: After a dominant vendor exits, a buyer seeds several interoperable specialist suppliers rather than recreating a single dependency.

failure_modes: The vacancy is treated as ownerless space and affected rights are ignored.

failure_modes: One founder captures infrastructure and blocks later specialists.

failure_modes: Urgency bypasses safety and evidence gates.

Platform-Enabled Adaptive Radiation

short_definition: Use a stable shared platform and open interfaces to support many specialist lineages while preserving interoperability and common guardrails.

distinctive_feature: The shared platform simultaneously enables rapid fan-out and creates dependency, capture, interoperability, and governance risks.

distinct_from_parent: The parent is substrate-agnostic. This variant requires platform boundary design, interface stability, access rules, portability, and anti-capture controls.

still_same_parent_because: The platform is implementation infrastructure for the same opportunity-gated, niche-matched diversification and saturation-driven consolidation lifecycle.

use_when: A new platform, standard, API, funding layer, or shared infrastructure lowers the cost of specialization.

use_when: Several complementary user, mission, or technical niches can be served independently.

use_when: The system benefits from persistent specialist diversity rather than convergence on one product or process.

use_when: Shared interfaces and governance can prevent fragmentation from destroying ecosystem value.

example_domains:
software ecosystems
modular manufacturing
public digital infrastructure
research platforms

domain: software ecosystem

example: A new API supports independent specialist applications under shared security, portability, and data rules.

domain: public infrastructure

example: A common identity and payment rail enables multiple service providers without granting the platform operator control of every service niche.

failure_modes: Platform rules favor the owner’s lineage.

failure_modes: Interface instability destroys specialist investments.

failure_modes: Apparent diversity masks shared dependence on one failure mode.

near_names:
Opportunity-Gated Diversification
Niche-Structured Diversification
Adaptive Specialization Fan-Out
Radiation Portfolio Design


Option Preservation

batch: First Iteration/Batch 09

Option-Space Preservation

notes: Emphasizes preserving the set of viable choices rather than a single option.

Strategic Optionality

notes: Common management-language near name; optionality is treated as proposed prime material, not a validated canonical prime.

Deferred Commitment

notes: Names the timing aspect but can be too weak if it implies passive delay.

Keeping Options Open

notes: Everyday phrase; valid only when options are actively preserved with costs, criteria, and triggers.

Real Options Design

notes: Financial and strategic planning language for preserving the right, but not the obligation, to act later.

source_primes: superposition uncertainty

slug: superposition

slug: irreversibility

slug: foreseeing

components:
Option Set
Commitment Boundary
Uncertainty Map
Commitment Threshold
Staged Decision
Information-Gathering Plan
Abandonment Rule
Reversibility Guard
Carrying-Cost Budget
Option Value Metric
Trigger Signal
Fallback Path
Portfolio Balance Rule
Stakeholder Commitment Boundary
Documentation Memory

mechanisms:
Real Options Contract
Staged Investment
Parallel Prototyping
Scenario Planning Workshop
Reversible Decision Protocol
Portfolio Exploration Backlog
Pilot-to-Scale Gate
Modular Design Option
Contingency Plan with Triggers
Rolling Forecast Review

essence_one_line: Preserve multiple viable future states or choices until enough information exists to commit wisely.

compression_statement: When premature commitment would destroy valuable possibilities under uncertainty, maintain a bounded set of viable options, continue learning, and define thresholds for narrowing so the system can act later with better fit and less irreversible loss.

core_intuition: Uncertainty makes early certainty expensive. A choice that looks efficient now may silently close future paths, lock in wrong assumptions, or force costly reversal. Option Preservation treats a choice space as a resource: it keeps enough paths alive to learn from the future while preventing endless delay through explicit costs, thresholds, and abandonment rules.

canonical_formula: uncertainty + irreversible narrowing risk + viable alternatives + managed carrying cost + commitment threshold → delayed collapse into better-informed action

structural_problem: A system faces multiple plausible futures, designs, explanations, partners, investments, or actions, but ordinary pressure for speed, simplicity, or certainty pushes it toward early commitment that would collapse the option space before the decisive information is available.

condition: A decision has irreversible or hard-to-reverse consequences.

diagnostic_question: What future paths would disappear if the system commits now, and how expensive would they be to recreate?

condition: Several futures remain plausible and the evidence is not yet discriminating.

diagnostic_question: Which options remain viable across the main scenarios, and what information would distinguish them?

condition: A premature choice would create lock-in, sunk-cost escalation, or path dependence.

diagnostic_question: Would early commitment make later correction politically, technically, financially, or emotionally difficult?

condition: The system can keep alternatives alive at tolerable cost.

diagnostic_question: Are the carrying costs of maintaining options lower than the expected cost of losing them?

condition: Learning will arrive before the final commitment window closes.

diagnostic_question: Is there a realistic opportunity to gather better evidence before action becomes impossible?

condition: Stakeholders disagree because they are implicitly optimizing for different futures.

diagnostic_question: Can the design preserve enough optionality to avoid forcing a premature winner among uncertain assumptions?

condition: A single-track plan would become brittle under forecast error.

diagnostic_question: Can parallel tracks, modularity, pilots, or contingency paths keep the system resilient to surprise?

symptoms: Teams frame uncertainty as indecision and push for a single plan before the uncertainty is actually resolvable.

symptoms: A project repeatedly reverses decisions because earlier commitments were made before crucial constraints were known.

symptoms: Resources are over-concentrated in one path even though multiple plausible futures remain live.

symptoms: Stakeholders keep arguing about predictions instead of preserving choices that would work under several outcomes.

symptoms: The system treats delay as the only alternative to commitment, missing active ways to preserve viable paths.

symptoms: Important options quietly expire because no one owns them, funds them, monitors triggers, or defines exercise criteria.

symptoms: A decision appears cheap now but creates hidden switching costs, data incompatibility, relationship lock-in, or political lock-in later.

root_tension: The system needs direction, focus, and resource discipline, but it also needs enough freedom to respond to information that has not yet arrived. The archetype balances the value of choice against the costs of carrying unresolved alternatives.

anti_signatures: The choice is easily reversible and low-stakes; ordinary iteration or quick action is better than elaborate option management.

anti_signatures: The alternatives are not actually viable, ethical, legal, or technically feasible; preserving them only creates false hope.

anti_signatures: The problem is mainly about choosing among known alternatives with stable criteria; progressive narrowing or decision analysis may be more precise.

anti_signatures: Delay would cause the opportunity window to close faster than new evidence can arrive.

anti_signatures: The system is using uncertainty language to avoid accountability, hide preferences, or postpone an uncomfortable but necessary decision.

anti_signatures: Maintaining parallel options would consume resources needed for safety, survival, or an already-selected critical path.

anti_signatures: The main challenge is to prepare for several scenarios, not to keep actionable options alive; scenario planning may be the parent activity.

structural_intervention: Construct and govern a bounded option set: identify viable alternatives, preserve the minimum conditions that keep each meaningful, gather discriminating information, define commitment and abandonment thresholds, and narrow deliberately when evidence or timing justifies collapse.

step: Define the commitment to be delayed.

logic: Specify what decision, investment, design, public position, relationship, or irreversible move is being held open. Without a named commitment boundary, option preservation becomes vague indecision.

step: Map the option set.

logic: List the genuinely viable alternatives, the futures or assumptions under which each remains valuable, and the minimum resources or rights needed to keep each alive.

step: Identify irreversibility and expiration points.

logic: Find which choices would be hard to undo, which options naturally expire, and what must be done now to preserve later freedom.

step: Estimate carrying cost and option value.

logic: Compare the cost of maintaining options with the expected loss from closing them too soon. Include attention, complexity, coordination, political, ethical, and opportunity costs.

step: Create learning channels.

logic: Gather evidence through monitoring, experiments, prototypes, pilots, forecasts, stakeholder research, or external signals that can reduce uncertainty before commitment.

step: Set thresholds for commitment and abandonment.

logic: Define what evidence, timing, constraint, budget level, risk level, or opportunity trigger will cause an option to be selected, modified, or dropped.

step: Preserve reversibility where possible.

logic: Use modular designs, reversible contracts, staged funding, fallback paths, and documentation so early moves do not unnecessarily foreclose later choices.

step: Narrow deliberately.

logic: When thresholds are met, collapse the option set into commitment rather than continuing to carry stale alternatives. Preservation is a bridge to better action, not a permanent state.

step: Review residual options after commitment.

logic: After selecting a path, retain only the fallback, contingency, or adaptation options that remain valuable under plausible change.

rule: Preserve only live options.

rationale: An option is live only if it can still be exercised, resourced, legitimized, and connected to the outcome that matters.

rule: Make carrying costs explicit.

rationale: Unpriced optionality becomes option hoarding; hidden complexity can make preserved choices more expensive than commitment.

rule: Define collapse criteria before conflict peaks.

rationale: Thresholds agreed in advance prevent every later evidence update from becoming a political renegotiation.

rule: Prefer reversible early moves when learning value is high.

rationale: Reversibility allows action and learning without forcing final commitment too early.

rule: Do not confuse uncertainty with ignorance.

rationale: The archetype works best when active learning can reduce relevant uncertainty before the commitment window closes.

rule: Abandon options that no longer serve a plausible future.

rationale: Preserved options decay, distract, and consume resources; dropping them is part of disciplined option preservation.

rule: Protect fairness when some actors carry the cost of others’ optionality.

rationale: Maintaining flexibility for one party may impose uncertainty, waiting costs, or risk on another.

invariant: Viability of the option set

why_it_matters: Each preserved option must remain practically exercisable, not merely named.

invariant: Evidence-responsive narrowing

why_it_matters: The system should narrow because relevant evidence, timing, or constraints changed, not because of fatigue or politics alone.

invariant: Explicit commitment boundary

why_it_matters: Participants need to know what is open, what is fixed, and what would count as commitment.

invariant: Carrying-cost discipline

why_it_matters: The cost of maintaining options must not quietly consume the value that optionality was meant to protect.

invariant: Reversibility where feasible

why_it_matters: Early actions should keep later adaptation possible when irreversibility is not necessary.

invariant: Ethical treatment of affected parties

why_it_matters: Flexibility for the decision-maker should not become unmanaged uncertainty or exploitation for others.

outcome: Reduced premature lock-in

indicator: Fewer irreversible commitments are made before discriminating evidence or timing thresholds are met.

outcome: Better fit between commitment and future conditions

indicator: Final choices align more closely with observed constraints, demand, risk, or stakeholder needs.

outcome: Higher strategic flexibility

indicator: The system can adapt when forecasts, technologies, relationships, regulations, or needs change.

outcome: Lower reversal cost

indicator: Wrong early assumptions can be corrected without full redesign, abandonment, or reputational damage.

outcome: More disciplined exploration

indicator: Parallel paths are maintained with explicit budgets, ownership, and kill criteria rather than unmanaged sprawl.

outcome: Improved trust in uncertain decisions

indicator: Stakeholders can see why options are being preserved and when a final commitment will be made.

prose_essence:
Option Preservation is the discipline of keeping meaningful future choices alive until the system has enough evidence, timing, or constraint information to commit wisely. It is not mere delay. A preserved option has a viable path, an owner, a carrying cost, a reason for existing, and criteria for exercise or abandonment.

The archetype is useful when the wrong early commitment would close doors that are expensive or impossible to reopen. It treats the option space as a resource that can be designed, budgeted, monitored, and pruned.

prose_when_to_use:
Use Option Preservation when uncertainty is material, future information is likely to improve the decision, and premature commitment would create lock-in. The archetype fits decisions about products, infrastructure, policy, investment, software architecture, healthcare pathways, emergency planning, and personal or organizational strategy.

It works best when the system can name the option set, estimate the cost of keeping it open, and define what evidence will cause narrowing. It is weak when the choice is low-stakes and reversible, when no useful evidence will arrive, or when delay would close the window faster than learning can occur.

prose_structural_problem:
The structural problem is premature collapse of the option space. A system faces several plausible futures or possible actions, but pressure for decisiveness, efficiency, political closure, or simplicity pushes it into a single path before the uncertainty is resolvable.

Once the path is chosen, switching costs appear: contracts, technical dependencies, sunk costs, stakeholder expectations, identity commitments, data formats, land use, public promises, or emotional investment. What looked like a small early choice becomes a hard-to-reverse future constraint.

prose_intervention_logic:
The intervention is to govern the option set instead of either committing blindly or delaying passively. First, define which commitment is being delayed and why. Then identify the viable options, the assumptions that support each one, the minimum conditions needed to keep them alive, and the evidence that would justify choosing or dropping them.

The intervention succeeds when preserved options remain exercisable but do not accumulate indefinitely. Option Preservation therefore requires two complementary moves: protection against premature narrowing and discipline against endless deferral.

prose_key_components:
### Option Set

```yaml
component:
  slug: option_set
  name: Option Set
  role: >
    Defines the set of viable alternatives being preserved and keeps the archetype from collapsing into generic delay.
  notes: >
    The option set should include only paths that can still be exercised with available or reservable resources.
```

Option Set matters because defines the set of viable alternatives being preserved and keeps the archetype from collapsing into generic delay. The option set should include only paths that can still be exercised with available or reservable resources.

### Commitment Boundary

```yaml
component:
  slug: commitment_boundary
  name: Commitment Boundary
  role: >
    Clarifies what is still open, what is already fixed, and which decisions would collapse the option space.
  notes: >
    Without a commitment boundary, participants may disagree about whether the system has already chosen a path.
```

Commitment Boundary matters because clarifies what is still open, what is already fixed, and which decisions would collapse the option space. Without a commitment boundary, participants may disagree about whether the system has already chosen a path.

### Uncertainty Map

```yaml
component:
  slug: uncertainty_map
  name: Uncertainty Map
  role: >
    Names the unknowns that justify preserving options and links each option to the assumptions under which it remains valuable.
  notes: >
    This component prevents option preservation from becoming a vague response to unspecified uncertainty.
```

Uncertainty Map matters because names the unknowns that justify preserving options and links each option to the assumptions under which it remains valuable. This component prevents option preservation from becoming a vague response to unspecified uncertainty.

### Commitment Threshold

```yaml
component:
  slug: commitment_threshold
  name: Commitment Threshold
  role: >
    Specifies the evidence, timing, risk, cost, or legitimacy conditions that trigger selection of an option.
  notes: >
    The roadmap identifies commitment_threshold as a component candidate for Batch 009.
```

Commitment Threshold matters because specifies the evidence, timing, risk, cost, or legitimacy conditions that trigger selection of an option. The roadmap identifies commitment_threshold as a component candidate for Batch 009.

### Staged Decision

```yaml
component:
  slug: staged_decision
  name: Staged Decision
  role: >
    Breaks a decision into reversible or semi-reversible steps so learning can occur before full commitment.
  notes: >
    Staging is a component of the parent archetype even when Staged Commitment may later become a subtype.
```

Staged Decision matters because breaks a decision into reversible or semi-reversible steps so learning can occur before full commitment. Staging is a component of the parent archetype even when Staged Commitment may later become a subtype.

### Information-Gathering Plan

```yaml
component:
  slug: information_gathering_plan
  name: Information-Gathering Plan
  role: >
    Creates the learning path that will reduce relevant uncertainty before options expire.
  notes: >
    Evidence may come from experiments, monitoring, stakeholder research, prototypes, pilots, or external signals.
```

Information-Gathering Plan matters because creates the learning path that will reduce relevant uncertainty before options expire. Evidence may come from experiments, monitoring, stakeholder research, prototypes, pilots, or external signals.

### Abandonment Rule

```yaml
component:
  slug: abandonment_rule
  name: Abandonment Rule
  role: >
    Defines when an option should be dropped because it is no longer viable, valuable, ethical, or affordable.
  notes: >
    Option preservation requires pruning as well as keeping paths alive.
```

Abandonment Rule matters because defines when an option should be dropped because it is no longer viable, valuable, ethical, or affordable. Option preservation requires pruning as well as keeping paths alive.

### Reversibility Guard

```yaml
component:
  slug: reversibility_guard
  name: Reversibility Guard
  role: >
    Protects the ability to reverse, substitute, modularize, or exit early moves that might otherwise create hidden lock-in.
  notes: >
    This can be technical, contractual, organizational, or social depending on the domain.
```

Reversibility Guard matters because protects the ability to reverse, substitute, modularize, or exit early moves that might otherwise create hidden lock-in. This can be technical, contractual, organizational, or social depending on the domain.

### Carrying-Cost Budget

```yaml
component:
  slug: carrying_cost_budget
  name: Carrying-Cost Budget
  role: >
    Limits the resources, attention, complexity, and stakeholder burden spent on preserving alternatives.
  notes: >
    This component prevents option hoarding and analysis paralysis.
```

Carrying-Cost Budget matters because limits the resources, attention, complexity, and stakeholder burden spent on preserving alternatives. This component prevents option hoarding and analysis paralysis.

prose_common_mechanisms:
### Real Options Contract

```yaml
mechanism:
  slug: real_options_contract
  name: Real Options Contract
  mechanism_type: institution
  role: >
    Creates a right, but not an obligation, to act later, preserving future choice while defining price, term, and exercise conditions.
```

This mechanism implements Option Preservation by turning future choice into a concrete procedure, artifact, contract, design choice, or review cadence. It is not the archetype itself; it is one way to keep an option live, govern evidence, or narrow at the right time.

### Staged Investment

```yaml
mechanism:
  slug: staged_investment
  name: Staged Investment
  mechanism_type: procedure
  role: >
    Funds work in increments so later capital is committed only after evidence, milestones, or risk reduction.
```

This mechanism implements Option Preservation by turning future choice into a concrete procedure, artifact, contract, design choice, or review cadence. It is not the archetype itself; it is one way to keep an option live, govern evidence, or narrow at the right time.

### Parallel Prototyping

```yaml
mechanism:
  slug: parallel_prototyping
  name: Parallel Prototyping
  mechanism_type: method
  role: >
    Builds multiple lightweight versions or approaches long enough to learn which path deserves commitment.
```

This mechanism implements Option Preservation by turning future choice into a concrete procedure, artifact, contract, design choice, or review cadence. It is not the archetype itself; it is one way to keep an option live, govern evidence, or narrow at the right time.

### Scenario Planning Workshop

```yaml
mechanism:
  slug: scenario_planning_workshop
  name: Scenario Planning Workshop
  mechanism_type: method
  role: >
    Explores plausible futures and identifies which options should be preserved under each future.
```

This mechanism implements Option Preservation by turning future choice into a concrete procedure, artifact, contract, design choice, or review cadence. It is not the archetype itself; it is one way to keep an option live, govern evidence, or narrow at the right time.

### Reversible Decision Protocol

```yaml
mechanism:
  slug: reversible_decision_protocol
  name: Reversible Decision Protocol
  mechanism_type: protocol
  role: >
    Classifies decisions by reversibility and routes reversible moves toward action while protecting irreversible commitments.
```

This mechanism implements Option Preservation by turning future choice into a concrete procedure, artifact, contract, design choice, or review cadence. It is not the archetype itself; it is one way to keep an option live, govern evidence, or narrow at the right time.

### Portfolio Exploration Backlog

```yaml
mechanism:
  slug: portfolio_exploration_backlog
  name: Portfolio Exploration Backlog
  mechanism_type: artifact
  role: >
    Maintains a governed list of exploratory options with owners, evidence needs, costs, and kill criteria.
```

This mechanism implements Option Preservation by turning future choice into a concrete procedure, artifact, contract, design choice, or review cadence. It is not the archetype itself; it is one way to keep an option live, govern evidence, or narrow at the right time.

### Pilot-to-Scale Gate

```yaml
mechanism:
  slug: pilot_to_scale_gate
  name: Pilot-to-Scale Gate
  mechanism_type: workflow
  role: >
    Uses a pilot, trial, or limited deployment as an option-preserving step before full rollout.
```

This mechanism implements Option Preservation by turning future choice into a concrete procedure, artifact, contract, design choice, or review cadence. It is not the archetype itself; it is one way to keep an option live, govern evidence, or narrow at the right time.

### Modular Design Option

```yaml
mechanism:
  slug: modular_design_option
  name: Modular Design Option
  mechanism_type: method
  role: >
    Uses modular interfaces or separable choices so one part can change without forcing commitment across the whole system.
```

This mechanism implements Option Preservation by turning future choice into a concrete procedure, artifact, contract, design choice, or review cadence. It is not the archetype itself; it is one way to keep an option live, govern evidence, or narrow at the right time.

### Contingency Plan with Triggers

```yaml
mechanism:
  slug: contingency_plan_with_triggers
  name: Contingency Plan with Triggers
  mechanism_type: procedure
  role: >
    Predefines alternative actions and the signals that activate them when conditions change.
```

This mechanism implements Option Preservation by turning future choice into a concrete procedure, artifact, contract, design choice, or review cadence. It is not the archetype itself; it is one way to keep an option live, govern evidence, or narrow at the right time.

### Rolling Forecast Review

```yaml
mechanism:
  slug: rolling_forecast_review
  name: Rolling Forecast Review
  mechanism_type: ritual
  role: >
    Revisits assumptions and options on a fixed cadence so preservation and narrowing respond to updated evidence.
```

This mechanism implements Option Preservation by turning future choice into a concrete procedure, artifact, contract, design choice, or review cadence. It is not the archetype itself; it is one way to keep an option live, govern evidence, or narrow at the right time.

prose_failure_modes:
The most common failure mode is option hoarding: keeping too many alternatives alive without owners, costs, thresholds, or abandonment rules. A second is analysis paralysis, where the system keeps asking for more information without defining how much evidence is enough.

Other failure modes include zombie options that remain listed after they are no longer viable, hidden lock-in created by supposedly reversible decisions, and threshold capture where criteria are rewritten to justify a preferred path. False optionality is especially dangerous: the system believes it has choices, but the options cannot actually be exercised when needed.

prose_neighbor_distinctions:
Option Preservation is distinct from Scenario Planning. Scenario Planning maps plausible futures; Option Preservation keeps actionable choices alive under or across those futures.

It is distinct from Staged Commitment. Staged Commitment is a phased exposure pattern and may become a full archetype after review, but here it is treated as a variant because its core logic is still preserving future commitment until evidence justifies the next stage.

It is distinct from Progressive Refinement. Progressive Refinement narrows a design or decision step by step; Option Preservation may deliberately resist narrowing until the right evidence arrives.

It is distinct from ordinary risk aversion. Risk aversion avoids downside; Option Preservation maintains future action paths and can be bold, cautious, or neutral depending on the option value.

prose_cross_domain_examples:
In product development, a team may prototype two workflows while preserving a shared data model so either path can win after user testing. In software architecture, modular interfaces can preserve the option to change vendors or algorithms later. In infrastructure, protecting a right-of-way can preserve a future rail expansion path before full construction is justified.

In investment, staged funding preserves upside while reducing exposure until milestones are met. In healthcare, multiple diagnostic or treatment pathways may remain open until evidence clarifies which one fits. In emergency management, pre-negotiated shelter and supply options allow fast action once hazard signals become clearer.

prose_non_examples:
A manager who delays a known necessary decision because conflict is uncomfortable is not using Option Preservation. A backlog that keeps every idea forever is not Option Preservation unless options are viable, owned, evaluated, and pruned.

A scenario-planning workshop with no authority, resources, or contingent actions is not Option Preservation. Nor is a nominal fallback plan that cannot actually be activated when needed.

prose_tradeoffs:
Option Preservation trades focus for flexibility. It can prevent expensive mistakes, but it can also dilute resources and slow coordination. It trades optimization for reversibility: modular or reversible designs may be less efficient than a tightly optimized single path.

It also trades stakeholder certainty for adaptive capacity. Some participants benefit from preserved choices, while others may bear waiting costs or planning ambiguity. The archetype needs explicit fairness review when those burdens are unequal.

prose_invariants_to_preserve:
The main invariant is that each option must remain genuinely viable. A named alternative that lacks authority, resources, technical feasibility, or activation conditions is not a preserved option.

The second invariant is evidence-responsive narrowing. Options should be selected or abandoned when relevant evidence, timing, cost, risk, or legitimacy changes. The third invariant is explicit commitment boundary: participants should know what is open and what has already been fixed.

The fourth invariant is carrying-cost discipline. Optionality is valuable only while its expected value exceeds its maintenance cost. The fifth invariant is ethical burden awareness: flexibility for one party should not quietly impose unmanaged uncertainty on others.

prose_target_outcomes:
A successful Option Preservation intervention reduces premature lock-in, improves the fit between commitment and future conditions, lowers reversal cost, and makes exploration more disciplined. It also improves trust by making it clear why options are open and when they will close.

The outcome is not endless flexibility. The outcome is better-timed commitment.

prose_parameter_dimensions:
The first tuning dimension is **option breadth**: how many alternatives should remain live. Too few options creates lock-in; too many creates sprawl. The second is **time horizon**: how long each option must remain viable before evidence or expiration changes the decision.

A third dimension is **reversibility**. Some early moves can be designed so they are easy to undo, substitute, or modularize. A fourth is **carrying cost**, including money, attention, coordination, stakeholder uncertainty, and technical complexity. A fifth is **evidence threshold**: how much confidence, demand, safety evidence, or feasibility proof is required before commitment.

Other tuning dimensions include option correlation, decision granularity, trigger sensitivity, ownership clarity, abandonment strictness, and fairness of burden distribution.

prose_variants_and_near_names:
Important variants include **Staged Commitment**, **Real Options Design**, **Parallel Option Exploration**, **Reversible Decision Design**, and **Trigger-Based Option Exercise**. These names help capture recurring forms without prematurely drafting every subtype as a standalone archetype.

Near names include option-space preservation, strategic optionality, deferred commitment, keeping options open, design optionality, and real options. These should point back to Option Preservation unless a future review identifies distinct components, mechanisms, and failure modes.

Staged Commitment

short_definition: Commit gradually as uncertainty resolves, limiting irreversible exposure while preserving learning and flexibility.

distinctive_feature: The option-preserving structure is temporal and phased: commitment increases step by step instead of remaining broadly parallel.

distinct_from_parent: The parent can preserve parallel options, modular choices, contingency rights, or strategic ambiguity. Staged Commitment focuses specifically on incremental exposure and stage gates.

still_same_parent_because: The staged form still works by delaying irreversible collapse until evidence or thresholds justify it.

use_when: The main design problem is exposure control rather than preserving many qualitatively different options.

use_when: The decision can be split into stages with review points, exit options, and increasing commitment.

use_when: Each stage produces evidence that determines whether the next stage should proceed.

Stage Gate

role: Sets formal review points between commitment stages.

notes: Useful when funding, rollout, or exposure can be divided into phases.

Commitment Threshold

role: Determines when the next stage should begin.

notes: Shared with the parent archetype.

Milestone-Based Funding

mechanism_type: procedure

role: Funds later stages only after evidence or milestones are achieved.

Phased Rollout

mechanism_type: workflow

role: Expands implementation gradually while preserving rollback or adjustment options.

example_domains:
venture investment
clinical trials
policy rollout
software deployment
infrastructure planning

domain: software

example: A feature moves from internal dogfood to beta to general availability only after success thresholds are met.

domain: public policy

example: A new program begins as a pilot before citywide commitment.

failure_modes: Stage gates become symbolic and do not actually stop escalation.

failure_modes: Early stages consume so much identity or political capital that later exit is impossible.

Real Options Design

short_definition: Preserve the right, but not the obligation, to take a future action when uncertainty resolves.

distinctive_feature: It frames future choice as an option with value, cost, term, and exercise conditions.

distinct_from_parent: The parent is cross-domain; this variant borrows from finance and strategic investment language and often uses contracts, rights, or staged capital.

still_same_parent_because: It implements the same logic of preserving future commitment until information improves.

use_when: A future action has value but should not yet be fully committed.

use_when: The option can be priced, bounded, documented, or contractually protected.

use_when: The exercise window and trigger conditions can be specified.

Option Value Metric

role: Estimates the value of retaining a future right.

notes: Can be quantitative or qualitative.

Exercise Trigger

role: Defines when the option should be used.

notes: Prevents indefinite retention.

Real Options Contract

mechanism_type: institution

role: Defines a future right without imposing obligation.

Staged Investment

role: Keeps capital commitment proportional to evidence.

example_domains:
finance
strategic planning
infrastructure
procurement
land use

Parallel Option Exploration

short_definition: Keep multiple exploratory paths active in parallel until evidence supports narrowing.

distinctive_feature: The preserved options are explored simultaneously rather than protected through contracts or staged gates.

distinct_from_parent: The parent may preserve options passively through rights or modularity; this variant actively develops alternatives in parallel.

still_same_parent_because: Parallel exploration still exists to avoid premature collapse under uncertainty.

use_when: The domain allows lightweight exploration of multiple alternatives.

use_when: Early comparison will reveal information that a single-track plan would miss.

use_when: The carrying cost of parallel work is bounded.

Parallel Track

role: Maintains a distinct exploratory path.

notes: Each track needs owner, scope, evidence needs, and exit criteria.

Comparison Criterion

role: Defines how paths will be compared.

notes: Prevents subjective switching after the fact.

Parallel Prototyping

mechanism_type: method

role: Builds multiple concepts before selecting one.

Experiment Backlog

mechanism_type: artifact

role: Keeps exploratory alternatives visible and governed.

example_domains:
product design
scientific research
curriculum design
policy prototyping
machine learning model selection

failure_modes: Teams duplicate work without learning from comparison.

failure_modes: Parallel tracks become rival factions rather than evidence sources.

Reversible Decision Design

short_definition: Reshape early decisions so they remain reversible or modular until stronger evidence justifies irreversible commitment.

distinctive_feature: It preserves options by changing the reversibility properties of decisions.

distinct_from_parent: The parent includes all ways to keep options alive; this variant specifically converts hard commitments into softer, reversible ones.

still_same_parent_because: The reversible design protects future choice under uncertainty.

source_primes: irreversibility uncertainty

use_when: Some early action is necessary but final commitment is premature.

use_when: Technical, contractual, or organizational choices can be made modular or reversible.

use_when: The cost of reversal can be lowered through design.

Reversibility Guard

role: Protects ability to undo or substitute an early choice.

notes: Central to this variant.

Switching-Cost Review

role: Identifies hidden costs of changing course.

notes: Helps target reversibility work.

Reversible Decision Protocol

mechanism_type: protocol

role: Routes reversible and irreversible decisions differently.

Modular Design Option

role: Uses separable structure to preserve future substitution.

example_domains:
software architecture
procurement
policy pilots
urban planning
organizational design

failure_modes: A supposedly reversible decision creates hidden lock-in through data, relationships, or sunk costs.

Trigger-Based Option Exercise

short_definition: Preserve options and define signals that activate them as conditions become clearer.

distinctive_feature: The option is linked to a monitoring signal and exercise trigger.

distinct_from_parent: The parent can preserve options without external triggers; this variant makes signal monitoring central.

still_same_parent_because: It preserves future action paths until conditions justify selecting one.

use_when: The option should not be exercised until a signal crosses a threshold.

use_when: The system can monitor weak signals or leading indicators.

use_when: Pre-planned action is faster than designing a response after the trigger appears.

Trigger Signal

role: Activates, revises, or abandons an option.

notes: Needs thresholds and owners.

Monitoring Cadence

role: Keeps trigger evidence current.

notes: Prevents stale trigger logic.

Contingency Plan with Triggers

role: Pairs preplanned alternatives with activation signals.

Rolling Forecast Review

mechanism_type: ritual

role: Regularly checks whether triggers have changed.

example_domains:
emergency management
supply chain
climate adaptation
strategy
public health

failure_modes: Triggers are too vague, too late, too frequent, or politically ignored.

near_names:
Option-Space Preservation
Strategic Optionality
Deferred Commitment
Keeping Options Open
Design Optionality
Real Options
Reversible Decisions