01
Make comparison readable without removing the differences.
Placing alternatives side by side is only the beginning. Two approaches described as fast may depend on different staffing, material availability, or later operating effort. Their expected results need to be read together with the conditions required to achieve them.
RAIFFA organizes expected outcomes, required inputs, and limits under shared comparison criteria. It can explain where an approach is favorable and where its conditions make it difficult to apply. Missing information remains unverified rather than being disguised as a low score.
02
Assumptions, resources and constraints require different checks.
An assumption is a premise on which the comparison depends. A resource is an input needed to carry out or maintain an approach. A constraint is a technical, operational, scheduling, or other limit. Assuming skilled staff will be available is different from identifying how many skilled staff the work requires.
Keeping these categories separate makes the next checks clearer. An assumption needs supporting or opposing evidence; a resource requirement needs an availability check; a constraint needs a defined scope. RAIFFA relates those conditions to the alternatives so a reader can understand the reason for a difference.
03
Counterevidence defines where a choice remains valid.
Even a well-supported alternative needs an account of how it might fail. Examine what happens if a person or part is unavailable, a task takes longer than expected, or a condition makes another approach preferable. Counterevidence is part of understanding the choice, not an inconvenience to remove.
The comparison retains the reasons and open conditions for each approach. Rather than simply naming a best option, it can explain when an approach is viable and which new information would require review. A conditional recommendation remains separate from the responsible person’s final choice.