think-what-would-have-to-be-truelisted

<!-- thinking-framework-skills | https://github.com/product-on-purpose/thinking-framework-skills | Apache-2.0 --> # What Would Have to Be True When a team debates whether an option is right, it becomes a clash of opinions and the loudest advocate tends to win. This skill flips the question: instead of "is this a good idea?", ask "what would have to be true for this to be the best choice?" That turns a position into explicit conditions, which can be rated for confidence and tested. It depersonalizes disagreement (we are not debating who is right, we are listing conditions and checking them) and separates what *would have to be true* from what *is* true. The output is an **assumption ledger** that ends by naming the one or two conditions worth testing before committing. ## When to Use - Evaluating a consequential strategic bet or a specific option. - A disagreement has hardened into competing opinions with no way to resolve it. - A choice rests on optimistic or unstated assumptions. - Often after options exist and before a final decision; pairs with a decision-comparison skill and with premortem. ## When NOT to Use - Trivial or fully reversible decisions where the ceremony is not worth it. - To generate options (use an ideation skill) or to choose among several at once (use a decision-comparison skill). - As a substitute for actually testing the conditions; listing them is not validating them. ## Instructions When asked what would have to be true, follow these steps: 1.