14 lines
2.3 KiB
Markdown
14 lines
2.3 KiB
Markdown
# The Select Shape
|
||
|
||
When the decision is **choose between candidates** — technologies, vendors, libraries, platforms, agencies, anything — this method layers over whichever research type fits the subject. The type pack still governs sources, craft, and freshness; this shape governs the flow and the verdict.
|
||
|
||
1. **Requirements frame.** What must the winner do, under what constraints — scale, compliance, budget, team skills, existing stack, exit-cost tolerance? Split hard gates from weighted preferences and set the weights. Sources: the project itself (brief, PRD, spine, `{workflow.persistent_facts}`, codebase) and the user — web research does not set requirements. **Agree the frame before any candidate research runs**; interactive runs confirm it even though the plan gate approved the dimension list.
|
||
2. **Candidate screen.** Establish the credible field — leaders, strong challengers, one wildcard — and cut anything failing a hard gate. Screen to 3–5 finalists; record the cuts and why. Screening sources ≤ 6 months old — this field moves.
|
||
3. **Evidence per criterion.** Score finalists against the frame using the type pack's dimensions and craft, verified against current versions/offerings. Cite every contested cell; where vendor claims and independent experience diverge, the divergence is a finding.
|
||
4. **Cost & lock-in.** Total cost over the product's horizon — license/subscription, hosting, operational load, learning curve — and the cost of leaving. Current pricing pages read directly (≤ 3 mo, always); pricing-change history — a vendor that repriced once will again; migration-away accounts for real exit costs.
|
||
5. **Verdict.** The weighted decision matrix — show the scoring, not just totals; a matrix the user can re-weight is worth more than a verdict they must trust. Then: the pick; the named runner-up and the conditions under which it wins instead; the strongest argument against the pick (from the red-team pass when it ran); the cheapest reversibility hedge (abstraction seam, pilot scope, exit test).
|
||
|
||
**Two-source classes (added to the type's own):** pricing figures; performance/scale numbers; any cell that decides between the top two finalists.
|
||
|
||
**Staleness:** a selection report older than two quarters should be refreshed before anyone acts on it — say so in the report.
|