Skip to main content
2.4

The Comparison

Estimated time: 25 minTool: Claude Pro
After this drill, you can:

After this drill, you can build a structured comparison framework for any real decision — options, criteria, weights, and recommendation.

Why this matters

Decisions are hard when you have multiple options with different trade-offs across multiple criteria. AI is excellent at forcing that structure: making trade-offs explicit, weighting criteria, and cutting through the fog of vague preferences. This drill gives you a reusable pattern for any decision where you have at least two options and at least three criteria.

How to do it

  1. 1

    Pick a real decision you are facing or have recently made

    Best decisions to use: tool selection (which CMS to use, which vendor to hire), career choices, major purchases, strategic directions. Must have at least 2 options and 3 criteria.

  2. 2

    Use the comparison framework prompt

    Tell Claude the decision, list your options, and let it propose the criteria — then refine them based on what actually matters to you.

  3. 3

    Assign weights to the criteria

    After seeing the criteria, assign weights (1–5) based on importance to your specific situation. This is where your judgment matters — Claude doesn't know your priorities.

  4. 4

    Review the weighted recommendation and ask "what am I missing?"

    The final step is adversarial: ask Claude to argue for the option it ranked lowest. This surfaces blind spots in your criteria.

The prompt

PROMPT — Build the Comparison FrameworkModel: Claude Pro
I need to decide between these options: [LIST YOUR OPTIONS]

The decision is about: [WHAT YOU ARE CHOOSING]

My context: [2-3 sentences about your situation, timeline, and what matters most]

Please:
1. Propose 6-8 criteria I should evaluate these options against (based on my context)
2. Create a comparison table with these criteria as rows and options as columns
3. Score each option on each criterion (1-5 scale with brief justification)

I will then assign weights to the criteria and ask for the weighted recommendation.
PROMPT — Weighted Recommendation + Devil's AdvocateModel: Claude Pro
Based on the comparison above, here are my criteria weights (1=low importance, 5=critical):

[LIST EACH CRITERION AND ITS WEIGHT]

Now:
1. Calculate the weighted score for each option
2. Give me the recommendation with the highest weighted score
3. Then argue for the option that ranked lowest — what would have to be true for it to be the better choice?

Success criteria

  • You built a comparison table with at least 2 options and 4+ criteria
  • You assigned weights based on your actual priorities
  • You reviewed the devil's advocate argument for the losing option
  • The recommendation matches or clarifies what you already believed — or genuinely surprised you

Common mistakes

Listing too many correlated criteria (e.g. "cost" and "price" are the same)

Each criterion should be independent. If two criteria always move together, merge them into one.

Assigning equal weights to everything

If everything is equally important, the comparison is useless. Force yourself to identify what matters most in your specific situation.

Skipping the devil's advocate step

This step consistently reveals criteria you forgot. The option you ranked lowest usually has a real advantage in one dimension you underweighted.