Decision Logic Audit · Strategic Consulting
For municipal leaders, executives of large public organisations, and private-sector business leaders.
Even with a strong team and good experts, one question remains —
have the right questions been asked, and do the answers actually connect into one decision?
Each person may perform their part correctly, but individually sound arguments and expert findings do not by themselves ensure that they form one traceable and well-founded decision structure. A Decision Logic Audit examines precisely this layer — the point where separate inputs become one decision.
WHEN IT MATTERS
The consequences of the decision are costly —
money, time, reputation.
Yet there may still be no full confidence in its basis: whether all material arguments have been considered, alternatives tested, and their consequences compared.
When the cost of a decision is this high, an additional review layer becomes especially useful when any of the following signals appear.
01The discussion keeps repeating.
The same arguments return in different wording, but it is not clear what has actually been resolved since the previous discussion and what has not.
02Options have been named, but it is unclear what they actually solve.
There may formally be a choice between A, B and C, but it has not been established whether they are even comparable solutions to the same problem.
03It is unclear what the other party is actually offering.
There is a presentation, promises, an offer or a contractual structure, but it is not clearly separated what the other party undertakes, what it does not undertake, and what remains your responsibility.
04There is a conflict, but it is unclear what exactly the disagreement is about.
The parties disagree, but their arguments may concern different objects, criteria or questions. The conflict continues while the actual object of disagreement remains undefined.
05The deadline is approaching, but the list of unresolved questions is not getting shorter.
Work continues, meetings are held and documents are produced, but it remains unclear what must still be established before the decision and which next step would reduce the uncertainty.
06You have to sign off on the decision, but its basis cannot be reconstructed concisely.
There is extensive material, expert opinion and argumentation, but no single testable chain showing the facts, assumptions, consequences and why this particular decision is justified.
07No one is tasked with trying to show that your idea does not hold up.
A team may help implement the idea and experts may review their own domains, but that does not mean anyone is independently testing the decision structure itself — its assumptions, counterarguments and the scenario in which its most important prerequisite fails.
THE LAYER I WORK ON
Domain experts review their own fields.
I review the structure in which their findings become a decision.
A lawyer can determine what is legally permissible. A financial expert can assess the financial consequences. A technical expert can establish what is technically feasible. But in a major decision, there may still be no one whose task is to examine how those findings are connected into one decision structure.
LEAN / Kaizen
Process, flow, efficiency and waste.
Financial Adviser
Financial model, costs, financing, return and financial risk.
Lawyer
Legal framework, contracts, obligations and legal risk.
Technical or Domain Expert
Technical feasibility, domain-specific conditions and constraints.
Decision Logic Audit
The decision structure itself: its objects, facts, assumptions, relations, conclusions and open questions. This is the layer where findings from the preceding domains are connected into one decision.
ENGAGEMENT FORMATS
What situation are you dealing with right now?
The engagement format depends on where the unresolved issue currently sits.
01The conversation is not moving forwardA team or several parties keep repeating arguments, but it is not clear what has already been resolved, where the disagreement actually lies, or what needs to be checked next.Engagement formatNegotiation Structure SupportOutcomesA traceable reasoning structure.Clear visibility of what has been resolved and what remains open.The exact point of disagreement is identified.The discussion can continue from the unresolved question instead of restarting the argument from the beginning.
Situation
During a discussion, objects, concepts and levels of reasoning can shift while the transitions go unnoticed.
What I Do
- I maintain the object of the discussion and its reasoning structure.
- I record claims, assumptions, counterarguments and shifts in the object under discussion.
- I separate substantive disagreements from terminological or referential mismatches.
- I work both in internal team discussions and alongside you in external negotiations.
Scope: The primary object of work is the discussion as it unfolds, not a full decision audit or open-ended consulting.
02One significant decision must be madeThere are facts, arguments, expert findings and alternatives, but it needs to be tested whether the specific decision actually follows from them.Engagement formatDecision Logic AuditOutcomesA testable decision structure.Clear visibility of the facts, assumptions and conclusions on which the decision rests.Uncertainties and untested inferential steps are identified.It is clear what still must be established before the decision can be made.
Situation
A decision can rest on mixed facts, assumptions, interpretations, forecasts and untested inferences.
What I Do
- I reconstruct the decision structure.
- I separate facts, assumptions, interpretations, uncertainties and chains of inference.
- I test the structure of alternatives, criteria and consequences.
- I identify what still must be established before the decision can be made.
Scope: The primary object is the specific decision, not conversation moderation or open-ended management consulting.
03A direction must be set, or an existing position testedA direction needs to be established on reasoned grounds, or an already chosen position needs to be tested against alternatives, counterarguments and consequence analysis.Engagement formatStrategic ConsultingOutcomesA reasoned direction or a tested existing position.The material alternatives and their consequences are visible.The prerequisites on which the position rests are identified.It is clear which arguments withstand counterarguments and what still needs to be tested.
Situation
It is not sufficiently clear which direction to take, or the existing position has not been tested against alternatives, counterarguments, prerequisites and chains of consequences.
What I Do
- I reconstruct the basis of the existing position or possible directions.
- I separate criteria, prerequisites, constraints and expected consequences.
- I compare alternative directions and test the existing position against counterarguments and alternative scenarios.
- I identify what evidence or open questions are still required before the direction can be reasonably established.
Scope: The object of work is a defined strategic direction or position, not general organisational consulting without a specific reasoning object.
METHOD
The decision structure is made testable.
First, we establish exactly what is being decided and where the boundaries of the relevant objects lie. Then we separate the basis of the decision — facts and assumptions — and examine the relations and inferential steps connecting them. The structure is tested against counterarguments, counterexamples and alternative scenarios in order to locate the remaining open questions. What remains is a testable decision structure in which each step can be traced and examined.
01Objects and Boundaries
What it does
First, we establish which objects the decision actually concerns and where their boundaries lie.
Why it matters
In a complex discussion, a single term can begin to refer to several different things. Arguments then appear connected even though they actually concern different objects.
Outcome
It is clear exactly what is being compared, evaluated or forecast.
02Facts and Assumptions
What it does
We separate what has been observed or demonstrated from what is only assumed within the decision structure.
Why it matters
In complex reasoning, an assumption can quietly begin to function as a fact. Further conclusions are then built on it even though the original basis has not been tested.
Outcome
It is visible which elements of the decision rest on evidence and which still require testing.
03Relations and Inference
What it does
We examine how the objects are related and whether the conclusion actually follows from the premises used.
Why it matters
Even correct facts can lead to a flawed decision if an unsupported causal relation, comparison or other inferential step is introduced between them.
Outcome
It becomes visible which chains of reasoning hold and where justification is missing.
04Adversarial Review
What it does
The decision structure is deliberately tested against counterarguments, alternative scenarios and its weakest premises.
Why it matters
A structure may appear convincing only because the scenario in which its most important assumption fails has not been tested.
Outcome
It becomes visible which arguments survive the stress test and which depend on fragile premises.
05Open Questions
What it does
We precisely identify what is not yet known and what information is required before a particular conclusion can be drawn.
Why it matters
Uncertainty is not a problem in itself. The problem arises when it is unclear where the uncertainty lies and which part of the decision depends on it.
Outcome
There is a specific list of questions, data or evidence that still need to be obtained.
06Testable Decision Structure
What it does
The preceding steps produce a structure in which objects, facts, assumptions, relations, conclusions and remaining uncertainties are kept distinct.
Why it matters
A decision-maker does not need the illusion that all uncertainty has disappeared. What matters is seeing what is sufficiently supported for a decision and what remains open.
Outcome
The decision becomes traceable: it is clear what it rests on, which elements have been tested and where uncertainty remains.
WHAT IT CHANGES
What has been established stays fixed.
What remains unresolved is pinpointed.
Once the questions in a decision and their basis have been separated, each new discussion does not need to reopen the entire decision. It becomes visible what has already been established, what remains open, and what it depends on.
The result is not a simplified decision. It is clarity about what has been established, what has not, and what the next step rests on.
WHAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED STAYS FIXED
If a question has been tested and its basis is clear, the result remains part of the decision structure. A new dispute about another question does not automatically reopen it.
WHAT REMAINS UNRESOLVED IS SPECIFIC
There is no longer one general sense that “everything is still unclear”. It is visible exactly which question remains open, what information is missing, and which part of the decision depends on it.
IT IS CLEAR WHAT CAN BE CONCLUDED
The basis of each conclusion can be traced. If a step lacks justification, that remains visible before the conclusion becomes part of the decision.
THE BASIS OF THE DECISION CAN BE RECONSTRUCTED
It is possible to trace which facts, assumptions, expert findings and conclusions led to the final decision and where uncertainty still remains.
ABOUT ME
Edgars Birže
My professional experience has developed along two parallel lines — entrepreneurship, and the analysis of language and logic. This work brings them together.
Manufacturing, technology and EADGAR BERSOHN
For ten years I have built and managed an export-oriented manufacturing business. I developed the production technology for curved parquet and, under the EADGAR BERSOHN brand, offer luxury-segment wooden interior products manufactured in my own facility to international markets.
EADGAR BERSOHN →ILKNIS and language analysis
I am the author of ILKNIS, a system for language and logic analysis, and continue to develop it. Work on ILKNIS is based on analysing language at a very high level of detail while maintaining precise object boundaries, relations and inferential transitions even in complex reasoning structures.
Combining two lines of experience
High-resolution language and logic analysis is combined here with ten years of experience in a real manufacturing business, where decisions have concrete financial, technical and operational consequences. The combination of these two lines of experience forms the basis of my ability to work with complex decision structures.
CASE STUDY
Long-Term Municipal Heat Supply Model
Evaluation of a long-term heat-supply organisational model in a situation where financial, legal, technical, institutional and governance questions are interdependent.
View case study- EUR 52.77 millionIndicative PPP contract valueexcluding VAT, at 2025 prices
- 21 yearsContract term1 year of construction + 20 years of maintenance
START HERE
Describe the situation.
You do not need to decide in advance which engagement format is appropriate. A short description of the question, decision or process where clarity is currently missing is enough.