LifeOS
Loading workspace
Decisions Lab
Life & career decision workspace
Weight what matters, score each path honestly, and stress-test the narrative before you commit.
Active decisions4Open threads requiring a dated choice
Model confidence
49/ 100
Rises when weighted totals separate cleanly
Next deadline
Accept advisory partnership terms
Today 17:30
- Choose pricing test cohort sizeTomorrow 10:00
- Commit to July travel budget capSaturday
Comparison engine
Compare 3 paths on six weighted criteria. Sliders update totals and the recommendation strip in real time.
Options
Scenario lens
Current leader
Option B: Independent advisory portfolio
Confidence signal
Moderate separation — validate assumptions
Margin vs #2
+0.3 weighted points
| Criterion | Full-time product operator role | Independent advisory portfolio | Hybrid operator plus advisory |
|---|---|---|---|
Money & security Importance 17% of total weight | 85 | 73 | 82 |
Career growth Importance 17% of total weight | 90 | 75 | 86 |
Happiness & fit Importance 17% of total weight | 50 | 61 | 55 |
Time freedom Importance 17% of total weight | 34 | 50 | 40 |
Risk / reversibility Importance 17% of total weight | 63 | 74 | 69 |
Learning & skills Importance 17% of total weight | 58 | 61 | 60 |
| Weighted total | 63.3 | 65.7Lead | 65.3 |
Recommendation: Option B: Independent advisory portfolio
Margin vs #2:+0.3
Evidence board
Pros and constraints — one row per option.
Supporting
Option A: Full-time product operator role
- +Maximum skill compounding
- +High mission alignment
- +Fast leadership growth
Constraints
- –Less schedule flexibility
- –Higher weekly cognitive load
Supporting
Option B: Independent advisory portfolio
- +Revenue stability across clients
- +Control over weekly calendar
- +Lower downside risk
Constraints
- –Fragmented strategic focus
- –Lower long-term equity upside
Supporting
Option C: Hybrid operator plus advisory
- +Balanced upside and flexibility
- +Broader network effects
- +Optionality across outcomes
Constraints
- –Coordination complexity
- –Requires strong boundary discipline
Decision notes
Capture assumptions, people to align, and kill criteria.
108 characters · local draft
AI recommendation
With your current weights, Option B: Independent advisory portfolio leads the model by 0.3 weighted points. The largest swing dimension is Time freedom — if that criterion is wrong by even one notch, rerun the matrix with a peer review on that row only.
Active lens: Realistic adjusts effective scores; use realistic before sharing externally.
Scenario simulator
Three futures expressed as operating assumptions — not predictions. Use them to test whether your choice survives bad luck.
Best case
Markets hold, key relationships stay warm, and you protect deep-work blocks. Learning and growth criteria outperform; money follows with a quarter lag.
- · Title / rate trajectory stays favorable
- · Health and family bandwidth unchanged
Realistic
Mixed execution: one major distraction, moderate fatigue, one negotiation harder than expected. The weighted leader today (Option B: Independent advisory portfolio) still clears if you enforce boundaries.
- · 10–15% schedule slippage on non-critical work
- · One dependency outside your control delays upside
Worst case
Demand softens or politics intensify; time and happiness scores compress first. If the gap to #2 collapses under this lens, your decision is too fragile — add reversibility or a staged bet.
- · Revenue or political shock within 90 days
- · Personal energy budget −20% sustained
Decision timeline
Past choices and the lesson carried forward — compressed audit log.
Chose advisory-heavy mix over full-time offer
Cashflow stable; missed one internal promotion cycle — learned to price retainers higher upfront.
Declined cross-country relocation
Preserved family rhythm; accepted slower title path — reframed “growth” as craft depth, not geography.
Exited side project partnership
Freed 8h/week; emotional load dropped within two weeks — now use written exit criteria before joining.
Committed to morning focus block policy
Decision quality up; fewer reactive pivots — evidence that time freedom scores were underweighted before.