Most "decision templates" you find online are a matrix: rate five options against five criteria, multiply by weights, pick the highest number. They feel rigorous and they mostly aren't — the scores are guesses dressed as math, and the format hides the reasoning instead of forcing it. The template below is different. It is the seven-section decision brief, and its whole job is to make you think in the right order about a decision, then leave a recommendation you can act on.
This is also, transparently, the structure YourBrief generates. We're showing you the template because the structure is the product — and because a founder who sees it work is a founder who wants it run on their own decision.
The template — seven sections, in order
1. The decision. State it in one sentence, then classify the door: is it reversible (two-way — cheap to undo) or irreversible (one-way — expensive or impossible to undo)? This single move sets how much rigor the rest deserves. Bezos's rule: two-way doors get made fast; one-way doors get made slowly and carefully. Most decisions are two-way doors mislabeled as one-way, and naming that saves you weeks.
2. Key questions to answer before deciding. Four to six questions specific to this decision — not "what does success look like," but the pointed ones whose answers would actually change your mind. If a question's answer wouldn't move you either way, cut it.
3. Recommended frameworks. Name two or three, and then apply each to your situation in a couple of sentences. A framework you name but don't apply is trivia. Show its output for your case.
4. Decision criteria. The specific tests a good answer must pass, tailored to your strategy and constraints. This is where "it depends" becomes "it depends on these three things."
5. Sources to consult. The specific data, people, or prior art that would sharpen the call — prioritized, so you know what to check first when time is short.
6. Next steps. Concrete, sequenced actions for this week, ending in a recommendation or the one decisive experiment to run. A brief with no recommendation is a book report.
7. When to escalate. The specific signals in this decision that mean you should stop and get expert or board input rather than deciding alone.
Why the structure beats a blank doc
A blank doc lets you write the conclusion you already wanted and back-fill reasons. The seven sections make you do the parts you'd skip: classify reversibility before you argue, write the questions that could change your mind, take a position at the end. Annie Duke's point in Thinking in Bets — judge the decision by its process, not just its outcome — is exactly what a fixed structure enforces. The template is a process you can't shortcut without noticing.
A worked example (compressed)
Decision: should we add a free tier? The decision: two-way door — you can sunset a free tier, though it's painful, so decide fast and reversibly. Key questions: does free acquisition actually feed paid, or just add support load? what's the free→paid conversion you'd need to break even on serving costs? Frameworks: unit economics (free is a CAC line, not a product decision — does the fully-loaded serving cost beat your other channels' CAC?); funnel-fit (does your product's value show before the paywall?). Criteria: a free tier passes only if it's a cheaper acquisition channel than what you have and free users convert without cannibalizing paid. Next steps: instrument a hard paywall first, measure demand, then test free as an experiment with a kill date. Escalate if free would touch pricing on existing paid accounts.
That's the whole shape, in a paragraph. A real brief expands each section with your numbers.
The catch
The template is easy to admire and hard to fill well — the value is in the specificity, and specificity is work. That's the part worth automating: you bring the decision, the structure and the reasoning come back filled in, in seconds.
Generate a full seven-section brief on the decision you're actually stuck on — $1 to start.
Related worked briefs: Build vs wrap the API · Raise now or wait · Layoffs or cut spending