Reviews
Part of Four ways to justify a decision, how to tell which one is in the room, and where each fails
Ethical Frameworks Questions for Reviewing a Decision Record
Use ethical frameworks questions to review a written decision record before sign-off: connect consequences, duties, fairness, and dissent to evidence.
Ethical frameworks questions can help reviewers test whether a decision record shows how a choice was reasoned through, not just what was approved. Familiar ethical approaches become questions for the decision-maker, reviewer, dissenter, and board or oversight body. Evasive answers count as gaps in the record, not as proof of misconduct. The focus is the written reasoning before sign-off: alternatives, assumptions, objections, and what could change the decision.
Turn ethical approaches into record questions
A framework is useful when it makes the decision-maker ask something specific and record an answer that can be examined. There is no single required list of ethical approaches. These four lenses can help expose different gaps without turning the review into a contest over which framework is best.
- Consequences or utilitarian reasoning:What effects are likely if the decision succeeds, and who bears benefits or costs? Record the expected effects and the assumptions behind them.
- Duties and rights:What obligations or rights matter to this choice? State what the decision must respect, rather than treating a favorable outcome as an answer to every concern.
- Justice or fairness:Are the decision criteria and the distribution of burdens fair? Record the standard used and whether it is applied consistently to comparable cases.
- Virtue ethics:What qualities does the decision express, such as honesty or courage? Ask whether the explanation reflects those qualities in practice, not just in its wording.
These prompts help clarify what evidence and reasoning belong in the record. They do not replace the role-based questions below, which test whether the process actually made room for alternatives, challenge, and review.
Set a record standard before approval
A useful decision record lets someone who was not in the meeting understand the choice. It should identify the decision, the alternatives considered, including doing nothing where relevant, the basis for the choice, material assumptions, objections, and what could cause reconsideration.
A preferred outcome followed by a polished explanation is not the same as a record of how the decision was tested. The GOV.UK architectural decision record framework documents architectural decisions to ensure visibility, traceability, and strategic alignment.
Use the ethical approaches as prompts when examining that record. For example, a consequences analysis should identify expected effects, while a fairness analysis should make its decision standard visible. A rejected alternative belongs in the reasoning, not only in someone's memory.
Keep the record proportionate to the decision. The goal is not to create paperwork for its own sake; it is to make the reasoning and its limits visible enough for someone else to assess. If an answer exists only in conversation, ask for it to be written down before approval.
Questions for the person deciding
Answer these before someone else has to request them. Connect each answer to the reasoning or evidence that belongs in the record.
Decider's pre-decision questions
- Who is worse off if this succeeds?
- What belief makes the other option right?
- What would I not say out loud?
- What am I assuming nobody will check?
- What would I want true if ordered?
- Who is affected if this goes exactly to plan, and how?Use the consequences lens to name expected benefits and costs, including those that remain even if the decision succeeds.
- What would I have to believe for the other option to be right?State the belief behind the alternative. If it is plausible, explain why the chosen option still prevails; if you cannot state it, the alternative may not have been weighed.
- Which duties, rights, or fairness standards constrain this choice?Name the relevant obligation or standard and show how it shaped the decision, rather than simply asserting that the result is fair.
- What am I assuming nobody will check?Identify material assumptions and whether they have been tested. If the decision depends on something staying unnoticed, the record is not candid about its basis.
- Could I explain this choice plainly to the people affected, and what does it show about our conduct?Note any part that is hard to explain. A virtue-based question tests whether the decision reflects qualities the organization claims to value.
Questions for the reviewer
The reviewer's task is not to redo every decision. It is to find out whether the record shows that a real choice was made, tested, and left open to reconsideration if its basis changes.
Reviewer's evidence checks
- Show the rejected option
- Name who argued against it
- What changed from first draft?
- What would cause reversal?
- Where is it written down?
- Show me the option you rejected.If the record says there was no real alternative, ask what doing nothing would cost and to whom.
- Who challenged the decision, and what was the substance of the challenge?"We had a good discussion" does not preserve an objection. A record of no disagreement on a consequential decision deserves a follow-up about whether anyone had a chance to speak.
- What changed between the first draft and this one?Look for changes in the reasoning, not just edits to the wording. If nothing changed, ask what tested the original account.
- What would cause you to reconsider or reverse it?"We'll keep it under review" does not identify a condition. Ask what evidence or development would change the decision and who would notice it.
- Where is the reasoning recorded, and who can read it?If the answer is "nowhere yet," the review is premature. A record that cannot be located or read cannot support scrutiny.
The reviewer should be able to connect the answers to the record: an alternative, an objection, a revision, a stated condition for reconsideration, or an accessible document. If any of these is missing, ask what has not yet been established.
Questions for the person who disagrees
A dissenter does not need to arrive with a complete alternative plan. These questions help put the unresolved issue and the response to it into the decision record.
Dissenter's four questions
- Who bears the cost?
- Would it survive accurate description?
- Smallest trial version?
- Can my objection be recorded?
- Can you help me understand who bears the cost, and how that was considered?This asks the group to make its consequences analysis explicit.
- What standard or obligation would make the other option preferable?A clear answer can identify whether the disagreement is about evidence, duties, rights, or fairness.
- What is the smallest version we could try first?Ask whether a limited trial would supply information the current reasoning lacks. Do not assume a trial is suitable; make the case for or against it explicit.
- Can I have my objection and the response recorded?This makes the dissent part of the record. The personal risks of speaking up vary by organization; the employee ethics discussion covers that separate concern.
A recorded objection does not automatically settle the decision. It does show what the decision-maker knew and what a reviewer should revisit if circumstances change.
Questions for a board or oversight body
An oversight body may not be close enough to a decision to judge every operational detail. It can still test whether the process produced a reviewable record and whether someone is responsible for following through.
Board oversight questions
- Decisions against commercial advice?
- Reporting channelwhat happened?
- Policy with most exceptions?
- Senior person disciplined visibly?
- What conduct is unknown?
- What decision was made, and which alternative was rejected?
- What reasoning or evidence supports the expected effects and the fairness standard?
- What objections were raised, and how were they answered?
- What would cause management to reconsider the decision, and who would identify that condition?
- Where are the decision and its reasoning recorded, and who can access them?
These questions examine whether the machinery worked without asking the board to substitute its judgment for management's. If management answers that there have never been objections or reversals, ask how the process would surface them if they arose. The board-level reporting question is also discussed under corporate responsibility.
The Seven Principles of Public Life say holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions.
Read evasions as gaps, not verdicts
An evasive answer does not prove that a decision is bad. It does show that the question has not been answered, so the record remains incomplete. Ask for the missing reasoning rather than treating the phrase itself as a finding.
| Question | Evasive answer | What it leaves unanswered |
|---|---|---|
| Who is affected if this succeeds? | "Nobody, really. It's a win-win." | Whether the decision-maker looked for costs as well as benefits. |
| What would make the other option right? | "It just isn't." | Whether the alternative was seriously considered. |
| Who challenged the decision? | "We had a good discussion." | Whether anyone objected and what the objection was. |
| What would cause reconsideration? | "We'll keep it under review." | What condition would change the decision. |
| What standard did you apply? | "We treated everyone fairly." | What fairness meant in this decision and how it was assessed. |
| Can the objection be recorded? | "Let's not make this formal." | Why the dissent should be left out of the record. |
Evasion vs. what it means
Question
- Who is worse off?
- Nobody, really
- Other option right?
- It just isn't
- Who argued against?
- Good discussion
- What would reverse it?
- Keep it under review
- Survive description?
- Context matters
- Objection recorded?
- Not formal
The evasion
- Who is worse off?
- Cost not looked for
- Other option right?
- Not weighed
- Who argued against?
- Nobody did
- What would reverse it?
- Nothing would
- Survive description?
- No
- Objection recorded?
- Record kept clean
What it usually means
- Who is worse off?
- Other option right?
- Who argued against?
- What would reverse it?
- Survive description?
- Objection recorded?
The next move is to ask the question again in writing and request a direct answer in the decision record. If the answer remains absent, identify exactly what has not been established. Do not treat an evasive phrase as proof of bad conduct.
When the record still does not settle it
Sometimes every question has an answer and the decision still feels wrong. Say that plainly: "I cannot find the objection, but I am not comfortable."
Ask for a delay if one is affordable, or for a limited trial if it is not. Record the unresolved concern rather than disguising it as agreement.
The broader discussion of ethical frameworks covers approaches to reasoning, while ethical dilemmas addresses cases where different approaches point in different directions. This review has a narrower job: make the decision's reasoning, objections, and limits visible before sign-off.
