one-three-one-rule

The 1-3-1 rule is a decision-making framework that produces one problem sentence, three viable options with trade-offs, and a single recommendation. It helps overcome analysis paralysis in architecture decisions, tool selections, and migrations by providing a structured technical proposal.

Structure an architecture decision by framing a single problem sentence, evaluating three distinct options labeled A, B, and C with pros and cons, and delivering a justified recommendation. This framework also includes a Definition of Done and an actionable Implementation Plan for the chosen path.

Yes, this decision framework applies to refactoring strategies, migrations, tool selections, and any multi-path technical proposal. It scopes the decision with a problem statement and compares three viable approaches to land on a concrete recommendation with an implementation plan.

The best way to compare technical options is using a structured decision brief that presents three viable approaches with concise descriptions and explicit pros and cons. This method ensures risk-tradeoffs are evaluated clearly before selecting a recommendation.

You need a structured decision brief for tool selection when facing three or more viable approaches that cause analysis paralysis. It generates a precise problem statement, compares options with trade-offs, and delivers a justified recommendation with a concrete implementation plan.

Comparing too many technical options causes analysis paralysis because viable approaches lack structured trade-off evaluation. The 1-3-1 framework solves this by limiting comparisons to three options with pros and cons, forcing a clear recommendation and actionable implementation plan.