Screen options for dominance before debating preferences

Comparing options does not always require a total score. Sometimes one option is no better on any stated objective and worse on at least one. Screen for that specific relationship before debating preferences, while preserving genuine tradeoffs. This fictional planning exercise uses comparable preparation blocks and explicitly defined supported cases. It does not estimate real team effort or select a Kiguri feature.

State feasibility and the objective directions

Use three invented options: A requires 2 preparation blocks and supports 3 cases; B requires 4 blocks and supports 3 cases; C requires 3 blocks and supports 5 cases. In shorthand, A(2 blocks,3 cases), B(4,3), and C(3,5). Lower preparation is preferred, while higher supported-case coverage is preferred.

For this exercise, each preparation block has the same meaning, each case is a specified requirement, and all three options satisfy the same mandatory constraints. Record those assumptions before comparison. A count of unequal tasks would not supply a comparable effort measure. A case count also needs defined membership; five trivial cases are not automatically equivalent to five required ones.

Compare A and B on every declared objective

A uses fewer blocks than B: 2 rather than 4. Both support the same 3 cases. Under the stated objectives, A is no worse on either dimension and strictly better on preparation. A therefore dominates B within this model.

Write that reason in a comparison record rather than simply deleting B. It tells another reviewer which assumptions justify removal. If B supports a necessary case that A does not, the equal count of three would conceal different coverage. Compare the case identities as well as the totals before accepting the fictional equality as an actual planning assumption.

Retain opposing tradeoffs

Compare A with C. A requires fewer blocks, but C supports more cases. Neither is no worse on every objective, so neither dominates the other. Their difference requires a preference or requirement decision that this screening method does not make.

Compare B with C as well. C requires fewer blocks than B and supports more cases, so C also dominates B under the declared model. The surviving set is A and C. Do not rank A first merely because it needs less preparation, or rank C first merely because it covers more cases. That would silently turn one objective into the only objective after stating that both matter.

Recheck omitted constraints before removing an option

Introduce a fictional missing condition: suppose only B can provide a required text-only handout within the session. If that condition is mandatory, the original assertion that all options are feasible was wrong. A and C may need revision or exclusion before the two-objective comparison applies.

Alternatively, the additional capability could be optional but valuable. Then it belongs among the declared considerations, and the previous dominance finding may no longer hold. Keep feasibility requirements separate from preferences, and ask the responsible owner to establish which they are. Never discard a necessary capability because it was left out of the first comparison sheet.

Hand over the surviving set and its limits

Keep the option definitions, objective directions, pairwise reasons, surviving tradeoffs, and unresolved criteria together. Ask another participant to explain why B was removed and why A versus C remains open. If they describe a complete ranking, correct the record.

This screen produces a bounded candidate set, not an automatic decision or an assurance that the chosen plan will succeed. It saves discussion only when measurements are comparable and important constraints are represented. Preserve uncertainty about either condition instead of presenting a tidy numerical comparison as more precise than its assumptions allow.