PERSPECTIVE
Decisions that stand up when scrutiny arrives
A note on scope -
The patterns described here draw on work in regulated banking, risk oversight, and large-scale change, alongside advisory work with leaders making high-stakes commercial and AI-related decisions.
The common thread is not sector, but scrutiny: decisions that must be explained, justified, and defended after the fact.
Activity is not the same as a decision
Under pressure, organisations often do a lot.
They commission analysis. They ask for more data. They launch pilots, programmes, or initiatives.
What is often missing is a clear statement of the decision that actually needed to be made.
I saw this repeatedly in regulated banking environments. Teams were busy, papers were produced, and meetings were held. But when scrutiny arrived, it was not clear what had been decided, on what basis, or with what trade-offs accepted.
Put the real decision on the table
The first step is simple, and often uncomfortable: name the decision.
Not the activity. Not the programme. The decision.
For example:
-
Are we proceeding, pausing, or stopping?
-
Are we accepting this level of risk, or not?
-
Are we prioritising pace, control, or cost? And what does that rule out?
In board and regulatory contexts, the hardest part is often surfacing the decision that people are implicitly circling without stating. Until that is clear, everything else is noise.
​
Define options that are genuinely comparable
A decision cannot stand up if the options were never real.
One common failure mode is presenting a “preferred option” alongside straw men: alternatives that are obviously worse, underdeveloped, or unrealistic. That may help a decision pass in the moment. It does not survive scrutiny.
Decisions that hold up are built on comparable options, each with:
-
a clear description,
-
explicit assumptions,
-
and real trade-offs.
This does not require endless analysis. It requires enough clarity that someone later can see that a choice was genuinely made. In board-level risk work, this was often the difference between decisions that survived challenge and those that unravelled under questioning.
​​
Make trade-offs and risks explicit
Every meaningful decision carries downside. Under scrutiny, it is not enough that decision makers knew there was risk. What matters is whether they understood it, weighed it, and accepted it deliberately.
In practice, people who scrutinise decisions - auditors, regulators, board members - are not naïve about commercial reality. They understand that work has to move forward, that not everything can be protected, and that some consequences are unavoidable.
What they want to see is that decision-makers:
-
understood the risks and downstream consequences,
-
recognised what would get worse as a result of the decision,
-
understood what would happen if nothing was done,
-
and made a conscious choice to proceed (or not) with all of that in view.
​
In other words, that the decision was made with eyes open.
​
Problems arise when downsides are glossed over, treated as accidental, or left implicit. The same is true when the risks of inaction are ignored or minimised. What tends to cause difficulty later is not an imperfect outcome but hte sense that consequences were not properly considered at the time.
In regulated banking work, this distinction mattered constantly. Decisions with real customer, financial, or reputational impact could still stand up, provided the logic was clear and the trade-offs were acknowledged explicitly. Decisions that tried to appear cost-free or consequence-free rarely did.
Commercial judgement is usually tolerated under scrutiny. What causes difficulty is when decisions appear to deny that trade-offs existed at all, including the cost of doing nothing.
​
Document the logic, not just the outcome
When scrutiny arrives, people rarely ask for more charts. They ask:
-
Why was this chosen over that?
-
What did you believe at the time?
-
What assumptions mattered?
-
What risks were you consciously accepting?
Decisions that stand up leave a trail of reasoning, not just conclusions. This does not require a long paper.
It requires a clear record of:
-
the decision being made,
-
the options considered (including doing nothing),
-
the key risks and trade-offs on each side,
-
and why this option was chosen given what was known at the time.
This is often the difference between challenge that is constructive and challenge that becomes personal.
​
Why this matters in AI and change decisions today
This discipline is not limited to a particular sector or contexts. I see the same patterns in AI adoption, operating model change, and commercial pressure situations. Leaders are pushed to act quickly. Tools and initiatives multiply. Decisions get implied rather than stated. Later, when something fails, or attracts attention, it becomes hard to explain what was actually agreed.
The same principles apply:
-
name the decision,
-
define real options,
-
surface trade-offs (including the risk of doing nothing),
-
document the logic.
​​
Decisions that age better
Decisions that stand up under scrutiny tend to share a quality that is easy to miss at the time. They are calm.
Not because there was no pressure, but because the thinking was structured enough to absorb it.
They do not rely on hindsight being kind. They rely on judgement being visible.
That is what allows them to hold together later.
​