Optionality Review

Review this [CODE/ARCHITECTURE/PLAN/DECISION] through the lens of strategic optionality.

(See Quick Reference section below for optionality principles and red/green flags)

Work to Review

[PASTE YOUR WORK OR SPECIFY FILE PATH]

Context (optional)

[Any relevant context: timeline, constraints, uncertainty level]

Phase 1: Decision Classification

First, classify the key decisions using Bezos's framework:

Type 1 (One-Way Doors): Consequential and irreversible

• Require careful, methodical consideration
• Need broad consultation
• Examples: Core architecture, public APIs, major vendor commitments

Type 2 (Two-Way Doors): Changeable and reversible

• Should be made quickly with ~70% information
• Can be changed if wrong
• Examples: Internal tooling, feature flags, config choices

For each major decision in this work:

Early Exit: If NO Type 1 decisions identified, output abbreviated report:

• List Type 2 decisions with brief notes
• Recommend: "Proceed quickly - all decisions are reversible"
• Skip Phases 2-6

Phase 2: Alternative Paths

For Type 1 decisions, evaluate the option space (2-4 alternatives):

Current Approach

• Description: [Brief summary]
• Locks in: [What future choices this constrains]
• Enables: [What this makes possible]

Alternative A

• Description: [Different approach]
• Would preserve: [What options stay open]
• Trade-off: [What we'd give up]

Alternative B (if applicable)

• Description: [Another approach]
• Would preserve: [What options stay open]
• Trade-off: [What we'd give up]

Alternative C, D... (add more if needed for complex decisions)

Assessment: Are alternatives adequately explored? [YES/NO] If NO, what should be investigated before committing?

For Type 2 decisions: Don't deep-dive. Briefly note 1-2 alternatives, then move on - speed matters more than exhaustive analysis for reversible decisions.

Phase 3: Exit Costs & Escape Hatches

For Type 1 decisions from Phase 1, map the exit strategy:

Red Flags:

• Irreversible decisions without clear justification
• No escape hatches for major commitments
• Assumptions treated as facts
• "We can refactor later" without a concrete path

Reversibility Score: [1-10] (10 = easily reversible)

Phase 4: Failure Modes & Fallbacks

What if things go wrong?

External Dependencies:

• Vendor lock-in: [None / Acceptable / Concerning]
• Technology bets: [Reversible / Locked]
• Regulatory assumptions: [Validated / Assumed]
• Single points of failure identified: [YES/NO]

Resilience Score: [1-10] (10 = multiple fallbacks, graceful degradation)

Convergence Check: If Reversibility ≥7 AND Resilience ≥7, consider skipping to Final Report.

Phase 5: Future Value Assessment

Does this create or destroy options?

Options CREATED

1. [New capability enabled]

   • Enables: [What becomes possible]
   • Value: [Why this matters]

2. [Another capability]

   • Enables: [What becomes possible]
   • Value: [Why this matters]

Options DESTROYED (with justification)

1. [Closed off possibility]
   • Prevents: [What becomes harder/impossible]
   • Justified because: [Why trade-off is acceptable]

Growth Potential

• Can scale to 10x: [YES/PARTIALLY/NO]
• Can add features without rewrite: [YES/PARTIALLY/NO]
• Can be extracted/reused: [YES/PARTIALLY/NO]
• Learning/telemetry built in: [YES/NO]

Future Value Score: [1-10] (10 = maximum option creation)

Phase 6: Decision Points & Triggers

Where should we reassess?

Assumption Validation:

• Key assumptions explicitly stated
• Validation checkpoints defined
• Early warning metrics identified

Final Report

Scores Summary

• Reversibility: [X/10]
• Resilience: [X/10]
• Future Value: [X/10]
• Overall Optionality: [X/10] (average, or lowest score if any ≤3)

Verdict

Optionality Assessment: [FLEXIBLE | BALANCED | LOCKED_IN | CONCERNING]

• FLEXIBLE (8-10): Excellent strategic flexibility
• BALANCED (5-7): Acceptable trade-offs, some lock-in justified
• LOCKED_IN (3-4): Significant constraints, ensure they're intentional
• CONCERNING (1-2): High risk, reconsider approach

Key Findings:

1. [Most significant optionality issue or strength]
2. [Second finding]
3. [Third finding]

Recommendations

Before proceeding:

• [Critical actions to preserve flexibility]

Build in over time:

• [Strategic improvements for future flexibility]

The Bottom Line

[2-3 sentences: Is the level of lock-in appropriate for our uncertainty level? Are we preserving the right options? What's the key trade-off?]

Human review recommended: [YES/NO] Reason: [Why human judgment needed, or why assessment is sufficient]