Guide
Can this decision survive scrutiny?
Most decisions are reviewed later by someone who wasn't in the room: a board, an auditor, a regulator, a successor, sometimes a court. They have the outcome, and they look for the record. If the record is thin, they rebuild it from emails and memory. A rebuilt record is something people argue about.
These seven questions are the ones reviewers tend to ask. Answer them before the decision is made and the record writes itself.
The seven questions
1. What exactly was decided? In words a stranger would read the same way. "Approved the vendor" is not a decision. "Approved a 24-month contract with Vendor X at up to $1.2m, subject to the security review" is.
2. On what evidence? Which facts did the decision rest on, and are they still on file? Evidence that lived in a slide deck or a call is evidence nobody can show later.
3. What was assumed? Was each assumption labelled as an assumption at the time? Reviewers are forgiving of reasonable assumptions that turned out wrong. They're not forgiving of assumptions presented as facts.
4. What was missing? Did anyone write down what wasn't known? A decision made knowingly on incomplete information is defensible. One made without noticing the gap usually isn't.
5. What was the strongest objection? Was it answered, or merely outvoted? A record that shows the best counterargument and the reply is far stronger than one that shows unanimity.
6. Who had authority? Was that authority current on the day? Delegations lapse, change and get exceeded. An approval given in good faith under authority that had quietly expired is a common finding.
7. What would have changed the decision? Were the triggers named, and was anyone watching them afterwards? Many decisions are sound when made and become indefensible because the conditions they assumed changed and no one revisited them.
Copyable checklist
[ ] Decision stated in one unambiguous sentence
[ ] Evidence listed, each item with a source still on file
[ ] Assumptions labelled as assumptions
[ ] Missing information written down
[ ] Strongest counterargument recorded, with the reply
[ ] Decision-maker and delegated authority recorded, current on the day
[ ] Revisit triggers named, with an owner
Why records beat recollection
A record written at the time is something you read. One rebuilt afterwards is something you argue about. The cheapest point to make a decision defensible is before it is made, when it costs a page rather than a review.
On the desk
ExecMind is built for this. Convert a conversation to Review and the evidence ledger classifies known, unknown, assumption and derived on the file, not in the prose, while an adversary states the counterargument. Deep is for the board pack or the irreversible call. Pack writes the board paper: conclusion, constraints, options, recommendation and counterargument. The desk will not invent the binding number. If an input you need is missing, it says so.
Questions
How do you make a decision defensible?
Record the evidence, the assumptions, the missing inputs, the strongest objection and your reply, and who decided under what authority, at the time the decision is made.
What does ExecMind add to a decision?
An evidence ledger, an adversary in Review, Quant for the numbers, and Pack for the board paper.
Is ExecMind legal advice on governance?
No. The desk prepares decisions, and you remain the authority.