explore-alternatives

To evaluate architecture alternatives, enumerate at least three viable options including a keep-current baseline, then score them using a weighted decision matrix with explicit tradeoffs, sensitivity analysis, and adversarial scoring to justify the final rationale.

The best way to compare libraries or vendors is to use evidence-backed carbon-copy lookup to check existing project memory, then apply weighted decision matrix scoring to quantify cost, reversibility, and tradeoffs across a minimum of three candidate options.

Decision matrix scoring and sensitivity analysis prevent biased decision-making by quantifying weighted tradeoffs across multiple architecture alternatives and testing score robustness against variable changes, explicitly avoiding the 'first idea wins' trap for complex interventions.

You should explore alternatives before implementing architecture-risky bug interventions or performance approaches during the plan phase when the decision complexity is rated five or higher, ensuring you enumerate viable options with explicit rationale before committing.

You cannot proceed with vendor selection if required source artifacts, ownership boundaries, approvals, or receipts are missing, because the evaluation process enforces safety guardrails that output a BLOCKED status when evidence is absent.

The alternatives enumeration process requires a keep-current or do-nothing option for performance approaches when relevant, ensuring you evaluate at least three candidate options with explicit pros, cons, and reversibility before deciding.