Produce one decision sheet backed by a transparent workbook and an evidence register. Our proposed decision sheet contains:
- The alternatives, including a realistic keep-current-arrangements case.
- Normalised historical performance and the common operating case.
- Each option’s additional revenue assumptions and supporting evidence.
- Total fees, operating changes, immediate works and transition costs.
- Monthly cash, peak equity funding and debt-service resilience.
- Five-year owner cash and separately stated exit assumptions.
- Contractual constraints and unresolved professional diligence.
- The conditions required to proceed, renegotiate or stop.
How should options be scored without creating false precision?
Apply non-negotiable gates first: adequate funding, usable data, acceptable contractual exposure and a feasible operating or construction plan. Then use an owner-selected weighting—not an alleged industry standard.
| Suggested criterion | Illustrative weight |
|---|---|
| Normalised owner economics and downside resilience | 30% |
| Relevant, permissioned operating evidence and references | 20% |
| Staffing and execution plan | 15% |
| Commercial strategy and channel economics | 15% |
| Reporting, controls and data access | 10% |
| Contract flexibility and transition plan | 10% |
| Total | 100% |
Record fit and evidence confidence separately. An attractive but unverified claim should not receive the same confidence as a reconciled result; missing information is also not proof of poor performance.
Bottom line: our recommended choice is the alternative with the strongest supportable owner economics, fundable downside and acceptable obligations—not the most compelling concept or the lowest visible percentage. Where the evidence is incomplete, a conditional decision is more defensible than a manufactured winner.