vote-aggregator

To aggregate product proposal reviews into a go/no-go decision, you consolidate five independent judge verdicts using a structured matrix. The process counts approvals versus rejections, extracts common themes, and outputs a final status with concrete next steps.

The five-judge review process for product management consensus evaluates proposals through five distinct perspectives: Pragmatist, Purist, Innovator, Skeptic, and Optimizer. Aggregating these independent verdicts reduces analysis time and aligns stakeholders on a unified, actionable recommendation.

To synthesize conflicting reviewer feedback into actionable product decisions, apply a decision matrix to the verdicts. This highlights conflicts, identifies common strengths and concerns, and determines whether the proposal is approved, needs revision, or is rejected.

This decision-support process is specifically designed to aggregate verdicts from five independent judges: Pragmatist, Purist, Innovator, Skeptic, and Optimizer. Using it with fewer reviewers would break the structured matrix logic used to determine the final go/no-go recommendation.

Judge verdicts need to be provided in a prescribed structure before running the aggregator. Once the five independent evaluations are submitted in this format, the tool tallies votes, applies the decision matrix, and produces the final recommendation and next steps.

You should use a structured aggregation matrix instead of manual consensus building when a product proposal has five designated reviewers. It transforms independent expert verdicts into a final decision, reducing analysis time and eliminating subjective bias from the evaluation.