Use when a selective defect needs IS/IS-NOT difference analysis or a consequential option choice needs must/want weighting and adverse-consequence comparison.

Kepner Tregoe Analysis Core rule: Diagnose deviations by testing causes against both IS and IS NOT. Compare consequential choices by screening MUSTs, weighting WANTs, and exposing adverse consequences before selecting. When to Use A defect affects some objects, places, times, or cohorts but not comparable others. Several candidate causes remain and the contrast boundary can discriminate them. A consequential option choice has explicit non negotiables, competing objectives, and risks that should be compared consistently. When NOT to Use A uniform failure has no meaningful IS NOT contrast, or the cause is already confirmed. One cheap observation settles the cause or one option plainly dominates every requirement. The criteria cannot be made operational; clarify them before assigning weights. The task is forward failure discovery for a planned change rather than diagnosis or option selection. Procedure 1. Choose the mode. Use Problem Analysis for a deviation from expected behavior; use Decision Analysis for a choice among options. State the target and do not mix scores with causal evidence. 2. Frame the target. For a deviation, record object, defect, location, time, extent, and impact. For a choice, state the decision, alternatives, constraints, and deadline. 3. Problem Analysis — build IS/IS NOT. For WHAT, WHERE, WHEN, and EXTENT, record IS, closest comparable IS NOT, and the distinction unique to the IS side. List changes near the first occurrence. 4. Problem Analysis — difference test causes. Generate candidates from distinctions and changes. A candidate survives only if it explains both IS and IS NOT. Run the cheapest discriminating check; stop when one verified cause explains the full boundary. 5. Decision Analysis — screen and score. Define pass/fail MUSTs and weighted WANTs (1–10 importance) before scoring. Eliminate options that fail any MUST; score survivors against each WANT and calculate weighted totals using the same scale. 6. Decision Analysis — test downside and sensitivity. For leading options, list adverse consequences with probability × impact and identify assumptions or weight changes that would reverse the ranking. Do not let a high total conceal a ruinous failure mode. 7. Decide or expose the gap. Return the verified cause or highest ranked acceptable option, the evidence/score behind it, residual risk, and next verification. If no cause verifies or no option passes MUSTs, return open/none rather than force a winner. Output Return one mode specific decision artifact: Problem Analysis: problem statement; IS/IS NOT matrix with distinctions; nearby changes; candidate vs boundary tests; confirmed cause or next discriminating check. Decision Analysis: decision statement; alternatives; MUST screen; weighted WANT matrix; adverse consequence table; sensitivity/reversal conditions; selected option or none. Verification Falsify/stop: reject a cause that cannot explain both sides of the boundary. Reject a choice if it fails a MUST, depends on inconsistent scoring, or loses under a plausible weight/risk change that was hidden. Over application guard: skip the full matrix for an obvious cause, trivial choice, or one shot check. Stop when the cause verifies or the option is robust enough for the stated stakes; extra rows are ceremony.

thinking-kepner-tregoe