The Decision Memo
Exercise 4: The Decision Memo
Layers Used: Layer 2 (Reasoning Receipt), Layer 6 (Iterative Drafts)
What You Do
After all three exercises, write a formal Decision Memo (500-700 words): your final position on the dilemma, the strongest arguments for and against, the stakeholders who bear the cost, and the specific conditions under which you would reverse your position. This memo is your Draft 1. Submit it to AI for review, revise (Draft 2), then finalize (Draft 3).
Draft 1 Decision Memo (before AI review). Draft 2 (after AI review). Draft 3 (final). An evolution tracker showing what changed between each draft and why. A final Confidence Statement: has your confidence increased, decreased, or stayed the same since Exercise 1, and why?
I have completed an entire ethical reasoning chapter: I locked a position, survived three rounds of adversarial challenge, argued the opposite side, and now I am writing a Decision Memo. This is my Draft 1.
Please: (1) Rate the overall quality of my ethical reasoning in this memo from 1-10. (2) Am I honestly representing the strongest arguments against my position, or am I building straw men? (3) Is my stakeholder cost analysis complete and honest? (4) Are my reversal conditions specific and testable, or vague and evasive? (5) Compare this memo to my original Position Lock from Exercise 1 -- has my thinking matured? In what ways? (6) Give me specific revision suggestions for Draft 2.
My original Position Lock:
My three-round adversarial exchange:
My Draft 1 memo:
Finally, complete the Thinking Score Card for this exercise: Independent Thinking (1-10), Critical Evaluation (1-10), Reasoning Depth (1-10), Originality (1-10), Self-Awareness (1-10). For each score, give a one-sentence justification.
Discuss with an AI. Question your scores.
Come back when you have your BEST evaluation.
Deliverable Template (click to expand)
DECISION MEMO TEMPLATE
Draft ___ (1/2/3)
- Dilemma: [paste]
- My Final Position (1-2 sentences): ___
- Strongest Arguments FOR My Position:
- ___
- ___
- ___
- Strongest Arguments AGAINST My Position:
- ___
- ___
- ___
- Stakeholder Cost Matrix:
| Group | Impact | Benefit/Harm | Magnitude (L/M/H) |
|---|---|---|---|
- Reversal Conditions: I would change my position if: ___
- Confidence: ___% (Exercise 1 was ___%)
- What Changed: ___
What This Teaches You
You learn to synthesize an ethical position through the full arc: initial conviction, adversarial challenge, perspective shift, and formal articulation. The three-draft evolution shows how much your thinking matured from gut reaction to considered judgment. This is the ethical reasoning process you will apply to every AI design decision in the rest of the book.
An Ethical Reasoning Portfolio containing: (1) the sealed Position Lock with Stakeholder Cost Matrix, (2) the three-round adversarial exchange with Position Tracker, (3) the stakeholder swap preparation, peer feedback, and reflection, (4) the Decision Memo (all three drafts with evolution tracker), and (5) all AI feedback with responses.
Grading Criteria
| Component | Weight | What Is Assessed |
|---|---|---|
| Position Lock quality (clarity, stakeholder awareness) | 15% | Clear position statement, complete Stakeholder Cost Matrix, calibrated confidence |
| Adversarial defence quality (three rounds of engagement) | 25% | Depth of defence responses, intellectual honesty in Position Tracker, engagement with counter-arguments |
| Stakeholder swap (peer scores for conviction and empathy) | 20% | Peer feedback scores on argument strength, apparent conviction, and empathy; quality of reflection |
| Decision Memo (three-draft evolution, intellectual maturity) | 25% | Visible evolution across drafts, honest representation of counter-arguments, specific reversal conditions |
| AI feedback integration and reflections | 15% | Evidence of engaging with AI feedback critically, not just accepting or ignoring it |