Library / Strategy Principles Framework
Jump to passage
In this reading

Link to current text

Published source confirmed at last check

Source changed 2026-10-03 05:29:54 UTC · snapshot created 2026-10-03 05:30:57 UTC · last check 2026-10-03 05:40:05 UTC

STR.9:4.1 - Fix the comparison being claimed

Name the strategic subject, current configuration, alternatives, horizon, criterion and protected conditions. Use STR.6’s complete-enough options and STR.8’s supported or missing conditions. Compare the same question for every alternative.

Distinguish an option excluded by a current condition from one with a low expected benefit or an unresolved premise. Required permission is an eligibility question; uncertain demand is a consequence question. A missing estimate is not zero effect.

Use a qualified PSD.12 robustness account when it already covers the relevant configuration and variation. Strategy adds the effect on direction, commitment timing, capability and future exercise. A result for another horizon or a smaller configuration does not automatically answer this comparison.

When another participant’s response can change the result, use STR.4’s qualified response account for each candidate move. A common comparison basis can contain the same conditional response rule applied to different own moves, producing different responses. Do not hold the other participant’s action fixed merely to make the columns look alike. Compare the induced outcomes, timing, full burden and protected limits; retain conditional results where the response premise is unresolved.

In STR.4:5.3, this changes integration’s relevant outcome from promised maintenance to the provider’s induced restriction. An effective prior interface transfer is a different arrangement to compare, not evidence that the original promise already prevents restriction. Ordinary comparisons under exogenous conditions remain sufficient when other participants’ responses cannot alter the choice.