STR.3:4 - Solution
Formulate the strategic question so that each material difference changes an information need, feasible direction, consequence or commitment. Keep unlike unresolved matters separate, then return the strongest bounded question and supported claim available.
STR.3:4.1 - Recover the difficulty without embedding its remedy
Use STR.1’s identified subject, receiving decision and horizon, and STR.2’s changed premises when they already answer those questions. Begin from what is observed, anticipated or sought. “Our generic-inspection price fell” is an observation in the supplied case. “Service will restore growth” is a proposed response resting on further claims.
State what makes the situation strategically important: the contribution threatened or sought, the people or organizations affected, and the commitment that may need to change. Separate an actual adverse condition from a possible future difficulty and from an opportunity. All three can warrant strategic work, but they do not supply the same evidence or urgency.
STR.3:4.2 - Contrast formulations only where the contrast changes work
Ask which different account could change the beneficiary, objective, included consequences or action family. Keep the strongest plausible rival to the initial formulation; do not create one merely to fill a matrix. A useful contrast might shift attention from protecting a product margin to obtaining a reliable customer outcome with a different business arrangement.
For each retained formulation, explain the action-changing difference in ordinary sentences. What does it foreground? Which evidence would support or weaken it? What action does it make worth considering that the initial wording excluded? A renamed problem with the same consequences adds no useful plurality.
When plural problem construction itself remains difficult, PSD.3, Generate Plural Problem Formulations, supplies that contribution. Reuse a sufficient PSD.3 result for the same subject, horizon and receiving decision. This Strategy pattern uses those contrasts to determine which strategic directions and commitments need examination; it does not require repeating the formulation exercise.
STR.3:4.3 - Give unlike unresolved matters their own answer
Choose a representation and response that fit the issue. The following distinctions are useful prompts, not a closed taxonomy:
| What remains unresolved | A useful next answer | What that answer can change |
|---|---|---|
| A consequence such as demand or delivery cost | A qualified estimate, supported bound or conditional claim | Which directions or commitment sizes remain attractive |
| Competing explanations or future conditions | The assumptions on which their implications differ | Which models, scenarios or option families to retain |
| Whose benefit or loss should govern the choice | An attributed value judgement and the responsible decision | The comparison criterion, not the observed facts |
| A required right or permission | The qualified determination or authorization for the proposed use | Eligibility of dependent action |
| A missing contribution or resource | A feasible way to obtain it, a narrower option or the stated gap | What can actually be undertaken |
An uncertain claim about a right and the absence of the required right are different conditions. Request a determination when the former prevents choice; do not treat the latter as a probability to offset with expected benefit. Likewise, an unknown resource requirement differs from a known requirement exceeding what is available.
PSD.10, Represent Decision-Relevant Uncertainty and Evidence Limits, supplies the bounded uncertainty account when a relied-on estimate, model or source limit needs further work. Use its result without converting supported ranges into probability distributions or scenario counts into likelihoods.
STR.3:4.4 - Turn uncertainty into a discriminating strategic question
Ask what a different answer could change. It may change the preferred direction, make an option inadmissible, narrow the commitment or show that all current options fail a protected condition. A shared failure matters even if it leaves their ranking unchanged.
A useful question specifies the affected choice and an attainable answer: “At the stated customer price ceiling, can any permitted service configuration cover travel and incident support?” An answer of no can end the current service proposal. “Learn more about customers” gives no such stopping point.
Check whether existing evidence already answers it. When new inquiry would be useful, name the smallest relevant contribution and its time or access limit. STR.7 can judge and design an experiment if an experiment is actually warranted. No claim of eventual solvability makes a costly inquiry worthwhile now.
STR.3:4.5 - Return the formulation and the useful next branch
Return the strategic question, material rival formulations, shared and disputed premises, supported claims and unresolved questions. State why each retained contrast changes the next work. Ordinary notes are enough when they preserve this reasoning for the recipient.
Use STR.4 when different future conditions change the choice; STR.5 when a different contribution calls for new directions; or STR.9 when a sufficient option set and comparison basis already exist. If a known constraint excludes the proposed commitment under every retained formulation, return that constraint and any viable narrower action. Reframing need not become a scenario workshop.
Reopen when a changed beneficiary, consequence, objective, resource or credible explanation changes the action families. A new phrase alone does not reopen the question.