Cognitive Biases · Growth Library
Judge Each Option Against the Same Criteria
Spot the Contrast Trap
Try this
State the outcome and non-negotiables. Review each option separately using the same short criteria and note pass, unclear or fail. Compare only after the separate assessments are complete. Recheck any choice that depends mainly on the previous option looking unusually good or bad.
Check-in: Would I make the same choice if this option appeared first, and which criterion actually supports the decision?
Evidence: Practical guidance; no evidence-like claim is detected in the current source record.
Review note: The inherited article contained fabricated trials, laboratory ranges, hiring outcomes and savings claims. The effective public record is rewritten as an independent-assessment protocol without an evidence claim.
An option can look better or worse because of what appeared immediately before it. A stable decision process starts with the outcome and criteria, not with the order in which options happened to arrive.
1. Define the outcome
Write what the decision must accomplish and which constraints cannot be traded away. This becomes the standard against which every option is judged.
2. Use the same criteria for every option
Keep the list short and observable: required capability, total cost, implementation effort, reliability, timing or another decision-specific condition.
3. Assess each option separately
Review one option without discussing whether it is better than the previous one. Mark each criterion as pass, unclear or fail and note what information is missing.
4. Compare after separate assessment
Now compare the completed notes. Resolve trade-offs using the stated outcome rather than letting an extreme option define what counts as acceptable.
5. Run an order check
Ask whether the choice would remain the same if the options appeared in another order or without a deliberately weak or expensive comparison. Reassess when the answer is unclear.
Questions to consider
Should I avoid comparing options?
No. Comparison is necessary. The protocol delays comparison until each option has been judged against a stable standard.
Do I need a numeric score?
No. Short labels such as pass, unclear and fail are enough when they refer to the same criteria. Numbers can create false precision when the criteria are vague.
What if the decision must be fast?
Use one non-negotiable criterion and ask whether the option meets it without reference to the preceding option. Record the larger review for decisions that can wait.
Maintenance record
Review history
Current status: Reviewed. An editorial or evidence review is recorded and no later event changes that conclusion.
2026-08-22 · reviewed · Brali claim cleanup agent Source: protocol-content-overrides-claim-cleanup-batch-2.json
Replace an inherited article containing fabricated trials, regret reduction, laboratory ranges, hiring outcomes and savings claims with a bounded independent-assessment protocol.
Browse the review ledger · Challenge or update this hack
Implementation observations can trigger a review, but they cannot change an evidence conclusion by themselves. Commercial relationships do not control review status or outcomes.
Continue from here
Choose the next useful path.
Article versions
Brali keeps substantive article history visible. Later reviews may refresh wording, sources, examples, or boundaries without silently replacing the record.
- Version 2025-10-06: first recorded publication in the migrated Brali corpus.
- Evidence review 2026-08-22: reviewed by Brali claim cleanup agent; evidence state is
practical.
Canonical source record · Evidence state: practical.