---
name: explore-decisions
description: Sharpen an artifact or decision through focused evidence-based questions and concrete alternatives.
---

## Goal

Produce an improved artifact, evidenced recommendation, or bounded unknown without changing the subject.

### Definition of Done

- Subject, advisory mode, candidate, criteria, and evidence are explicit.
- Questions address a material evidence gap; otherwise the result gives a recommendation.
- The result includes a counterargument or exact proposed wording where useful.
- Current validation accepts the current candidate; no required finding remains.

## Boundaries

- Keep proposed edits advisory. Do not write the subject without separate authority.

## Workflow

1. Resolve whether to refine an artifact, compare alternatives, or examine an evidence gap. Derive the validation contract from applicable instructions and loaded principles.
2. Inspect the subject and relevant evidence. Ask one focused question, or up to four on one gap, only when evidence cannot settle a material fact.
3. Recommend when evidence is sufficient. Test it against the artifact and rules; supply a counterargument for a decision or exact wording for an artifact.
4. For substantive work, use [Quality validation](references/vstack/protocols/quality-validation.md) in advisory mode with the scope, candidate, and evidence. Otherwise self-assess, collect distinct review and critique, triage findings, improve the candidate, and renew affected verdicts until acceptance.
5. On unchanged evidence, change approach or return the cause, options, recommendation, consequence, and next action.