Feasible Option Inventory¶
Comparison scoping — instantiates Feasible-Alternative Comparator Calibration
Turns 'compared to what?' into an explicit, bounded list of the options that could actually be chosen or built under the real constraints.
Before any option can be judged, the choice set has to be named. Feasible Option Inventory is the scoping step that answers "compared to what?" by first fixing the decision on the table, then describing the concrete option under review in its real, burdened form, and finally enumerating the alternatives that could actually be chosen or implemented under the same constraints — budget, authority, timeline, compliance, and physics. Its whole job is to convert a loose argument — "this is flawed" — into a bounded, written list of real candidates, so the argument can no longer float against an unnamed, imagined better world. It does not score the options, cost them, or pick a winner; it only makes the set explicit and admissible.
Example¶
A mid-size city is debating whether to build a new light-rail line. Critics call the plan "wasteful" and "not what a serious transit city would do." The inventory step ignores that adjective war and starts by writing the decision question plainly: how should the city move an expected 40% more downtown commuters over the next fifteen years, within the approved capital envelope and existing right-of-way? Then it describes the light-rail proposal as it would really be built — the specific corridor, the phased funding, the operating subsidy it will need. Only then does it list the genuine alternatives: bus rapid transit on the same corridor, an expanded express-bus network, congestion pricing plus feeder shuttles, and the honest fourth option of keeping today's network unchanged.
The output is a one-page roster of four named, buildable options plus the decision question they answer. Nothing is scored yet. But the conversation has already changed: "light rail is wasteful" now has to finish the sentence — wasteful compared to which of these four? — and the frictionless dream metro that nobody proposed and no one can fund never makes the list.
How it works¶
- Fix the decision question. State what is actually being decided and under which binding constraints, so every later comparison is anchored to one question rather than drifting.
- Describe the real option in burdened form. Capture the option under review as it would truly be adopted — with its costs, frictions, and implementation path attached — not as a slogan.
- Enumerate only choosable alternatives. Add options that pass a bare admissibility screen: someone could actually select or build them under the same constraints. Include the status quo as a first-class member.
- Freeze the roster. Publish the set as the shared reference the rest of the appraisal must use, so new "what abouts" have to be added as real options or set aside.
Tuning parameters¶
- Feasibility bar height — how strict the admissibility screen is. Set it too low and fantasies slip in; too high and genuinely reachable-but-hard options get pruned before they can be weighed.
- Set breadth — how many alternatives to carry. More candidates reduce the chance of missing the eventual winner but multiply downstream scoring cost.
- Option granularity — whether "expand buses" is one option or three variants. Finer splits surface real design choices but can bloat the roster.
- Status-quo inclusion stance — whether "do nothing" is always seated at the table. Keeping it in guards against a false forced-choice; it is cheap insurance and belongs on by default.
- Refresh trigger — whether the roster is one-shot or reopened when a materially new option appears.
When it helps, and when it misleads¶
Its strength is that it makes the comparison class concrete and finite before anyone starts arguing about quality — which is exactly what disarms the vague objection that pits a real plan against an unnamed ideal. A well-scoped set is the substrate every later mechanism reads from.
Its failure mode is a badly drawn set. An inventory that omits a strong feasible option quietly rigs the outcome, and one padded with near-duplicates or thinly disguised fantasies smuggles the ideal back in through the roster. There is also an anchoring risk: the first option written tends to frame the rest, much as a narrow consideration set can lock a buyer onto whatever came to mind first.[n1] The guarding discipline is to make membership a written admissibility judgment, keep the status quo seated, and treat "add the missing option" as always in order — while refusing to admit an option no one could actually choose.
How it implements the components¶
Feasible Option Inventory fills the scoping components — the ones that define what is being compared — and stops there:
decision_question_frame— it states the decision and its binding constraints as the fixed anchor for every later comparison.real_option_description— it captures the option under review in burdened, buildable form rather than as a slogan.feasible_option_set— its central output: the bounded roster of alternatives that could actually be chosen under the same constraints.
It does not score options on shared axes — that is Shared-Burden Comparison Table's shared_dimension_scorecard — nor pick the operative baseline (best_feasible_comparator, Best Feasible Alternative Test). It lists the set; the decision comes later.
Related¶
- Instantiates: Feasible-Alternative Comparator Calibration — Feasible Option Inventory supplies the scoped option set the whole appraisal reads from.
- Sibling mechanisms: Ideal Comparator Filter · Status Quo Costing Sheet · Shared-Burden Comparison Table · Best Feasible Alternative Test · Defect/Disqualifier Sort · Comparison-Class Review Memo · Feasibility Sensitivity Probe
Editorial Notes¶
Form Classification¶
Form family: Representation, Specification & Plan
Rationale: Feasible Option Inventory operates as a non-executable information artifact that externalizes static or prospective structure because it turns 'compared to what?' into an explicit, bounded list of the options that could actually be chosen or built under the real constraints.
Independent corroboration: The frozen evidence defines Feasible Option Inventory as 'Turns 'compared to what?' into an explicit, bounded list of the options that could actually be chosen or built under the real constraints', so its operative form is Representation, Specification & Plan.
Review outcome: Independent reviewer agreement; high confidence.
Origin Attribution¶
Primary origin: Operations Research
Origin pattern: Cross-disciplinary synthesis
Present-day reach: Universal
Rationale: Explicit enumeration of admissible alternatives is rooted in decision analysis and operations research.
Related originating lineages:
- Organizational & Management Science — Structured organizational decision processes shaped the bounded inventory artifact used before comparison.
Review resolution: Both reviewers agree that operations_research is primary. I retain organizational_management only as formative origin lineage(s), without treating every later application as an origin. cross_disciplinary_synthesis is appropriate because the exact artifact combines contributions from multiple professional lineages. Reach is universal as a separate applicability judgment: it does not widen or narrow the recorded provenance. Encyclopedia synthesis is true because the exact generalized artifact is an encyclopedia-authored combination or refinement. The secondary differences are reconciled with no unresolved primary-provenance ambiguity.
Encyclopedia synthesis: The exact catalogued form synthesizes established practice rather than reproducing a single standard historical label.
Review outcome: Reconciled after independent review; medium confidence.
Notes¶
[n1] In consumer-choice research, the consideration set is the small group of options a decision-maker actually weighs, drawn from the far larger set they could in principle consider; outcomes are highly sensitive to what makes it into that set — the same reason a poorly drawn option inventory can pre-decide a comparison. ↩