Protocol
End strategy reviews with continue, adapt, or stop
A review should update action when evidence changes.
When it fits
- When strategy reviews generate discussion but no change in allocation or commitments.
When to avoid it
- Leverage-point and information-value heuristics are prompts, not guaranteed effect sizes. Test interventions, monitor side effects and stop when evidence changes.
Why it matters
Compare current evidence with signposts, assumptions and acceptable outcomes, then explicitly choose continue, adapt or stop. Record what evidence would trigger the next review.
Steps
- Review signposts and assumption changes.
- Compare outcomes with thresholds.
- Choose continue, adapt or stop.
- Update the next trigger and owner.
An example
A distribution strategy continues unchanged because traffic and conversion stay inside the robust range; a new review trigger is set for AI-referral decline.
Check your result
The review produces an explicit allocation decision and a future evidence trigger.
Keep this limit in mind
- Leverage-point and information-value heuristics are prompts, not guaranteed effect sizes. Test interventions, monitor side effects and stop when evidence changes.
Evidence and sources
Supports
Robust Decision Making uses exploratory analysis to stress-test strategies over many plausible futures and seek strategies that perform acceptably across uncertainty rather than optimizing a single prediction.
Full RDM can require substantial modeling; lightweight cards should not claim equivalent rigor.
Robust Decision Making (RDM) · Abstract and method overview