Dissect Advisor Assumptions and Decision Logic
Unpick the underlying assumptions, worldviews, and contextual experiences that led each advisor to their respective conclusions. Map these driver assumptions against the founder's core decision-making logic to identify where perspectives diverge.
Deconstructing the root causes of conflicting advice exposes hidden biases and unvetted hypotheses on both sides. This enables the founder to evaluate advice based on applicable context rather than authority or reputation alone.
Deliver a comparative matrix mapping each advisor's advice against their underlying assumptions and relevant domain context. Clearly articulate the founder's baseline logic and where it collides with the advisor perspectives.
Five questions an expert would ask when reviewing your output
Use these to challenge assumptions, pressure-test your logic, and check the quality of this action's output in the context of the parent task and wider venture development.
- 1
What specific historical contexts or biases are driving each advisor to take their respective positions?
- 2
Which underlying assumptions behind Advisor A's recommendation directly contradict the core hypotheses of your business model?
- 3
How valid is the underlying data that Advisor B relied upon when forming their opinion for your specific market?
- 4
Where does your own decision logic rely on unverified intuition rather than validated market evidence?
- 5
What logic gap exists between the advisors' recommendations and your current resource constraints?