Sense and decide
Design the Test Together
Two sides who disagree build one fair test and commit in advance to the result that would settle it.
Borrowed from adversarial collaboration, a research method championed by Daniel Kahneman, in which scientists who disagree design a study together. Read the original source.
One session · An hour or more to set up · Anyone on the team can start it
Try this first
Ask both sides one question: what result would change your mind? Getting an honest answer is most of the work.
Use it when
The team is split (say, on whether an AI tool helps).
Skip it when
You need a question that can be tested and two sides arguing in good faith. It fails if one side will reject any result it dislikes, or if the fight is about values rather than facts.
How to introduce it
When the team splits, say over whether an AI tool helps, have both sides build one shared test together. Before it runs, each side states what result it will accept as settling the matter. Ask each side to state the other's position well enough that the other agrees with the description.
How to show up
Hold both sides to a test they each call fair, and to the commitment they made before it ran. Stop either side from designing a test rigged to confirm what they already believe.
How long it takes
Thirty to sixty minutes to design the test and lock the agreement. Running it takes as long as the test takes.
What makes it hard
Each side will tilt the test toward its own view. Insist on a design both sign off on. The commitment to accept the result is the fragile part, so get it explicit and on the record before the test runs.
What it looks like when it's working
Both sides accept the outcome, including the side it went against, and the argument ends. If the loser starts picking at the method, the pre-commitment was too loose.
How long until it sticks
Expect a few uses before a team reaches for it on its own. Agreeing the deciding result up front is the discipline that takes practice.
How you know it stuck
Someone facing a factual split says: let's agree what would settle this and go find out.
The idea behind it
A disagreement is only worth testing if both sides will accept the answer. Committing to the result before you see it is what makes the answer hold.
Where it comes from
Adversarial collaboration. When a team splits over whether an AI tool helps, designing the trial jointly stops the losing side redefining success afterward. Two sides who disagree build one test together. They agree in advance what result would settle it, and each states the other's position well enough that nobody feels caricatured.
Why it matters for senior teams
It shapes direction and consequential decisions