decision
ComparisonCanvasStructure
The verdict slide — one chosen path, named explicitly.
Variant
Use after a comparison slide to land the decision. The justifications render as one unified categorical strip — co-equal cards that together signal a single resolved verdict; the heading carries the decision, not a focal/subordinated split.
recommendationtradeoffstrategy
When to use
- Land the verdict. Follows a comparison slide to make the chosen path unambiguous. The heading carries the verb of the decision; the cards substantiate it.
- Two to four justifications. Each card is one short rationale — the chosen path first, then a Why-not card for each rejected alternative. More than four crowds the horizontal strip.
- After the comparison. Pair with
compare-proseorsplit-compareupstream — that slide does the weighing, this slide lands the answer. Reaching for decision without a prior comparison reads as edict.
When not to use
- No clear chosen path. If the cards don't resolve to a single verdict, the slide is back to being a comparison. Use
compare-proseorsplit-compare; reserve decision for the resolved call. - Long body per card. Each card is one sentence of rationale. Paragraphs belong on the comparison slide upstream, not on the verdict slide.
- Generic heading. The h2 carries the decision verb — Build, not buy. Adopt the framework. Pause the rollout. A heading like Next steps wastes the focal real estate.
Common mistakes
- Reordering justification cards, expecting their categorical accent color to travel with the same justification. The accent color is assigned purely by card POSITION (an
nth-childcycle through the categorical palette), not by content — reordering cards in the markdown reassigns colors; they don't follow the justification. - Manually bolding the option name with
**…**. The lead text auto-lifts to<strong>(the corner-tag CSS keys off it), and the lift step already skips an already-bolded lead — a manually bolded lead and a plain one produce byte-identical output. Wrapping it yourself is a harmless no-op, not a defect, but it's also unnecessary — write plain text and let the lift handle the weight.
Authoring
<!-- _class: decision -->
## What we are doing.
- Chosen path
- One-line rationale for the decision.
- Rejected option
- One-line rationale for why this didn't fit.Slots
| Slot | Selector | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
title | h2 | yes | Slide heading framing the decision. |
options | ul > li | yes | List items. Authoring contract: a top-level bullet is the option name (renders bold by default); an indented bullet underneath carries the short rationale. The cards render as a unified strip of co-equal categorical tags; the verdict is carried by the heading, not by emphasizing one card. |
Anatomy
┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ header │
│ Decision heading. │
│ │
│ ┌─────────┐ ┌─────────┐ ┌─────────┐ │
│ CHOSEN Option B Option C │
│ rationale rationale rationale │
│ └─────────┘ └─────────┘ └─────────┘ │
│ │
│ footer 1/19 │
└─────────────────────────────────────────┘Variant decision rule
- default (no modifier) — The reasoning carries the weight — a quiet corner tag labels each justification without competing with the verdict heading.
banner-tag— The camp or stance itself is worth headlining — converts the quiet corner tag into a full-width banner strip per card.
Variants
banner-tag — banner-tag
Headlines each card with its camp.
<!-- _class: decision banner-tag -->
## banner-tag headlines each card with its camp.
- DECIDE
- The banner carries the stance; the body carries the reason.
- RECORD
- Use when the slide is the decision log's public face.Related
- compare-prosethe comparison slide that should precede decision
- split-comparecomparison and verdict on one slide instead of two
- closingthe deck ends without a single-call verdict
- big-numberthe decision is a quantitative commitment