The reasoning gets recorded as reasoning
Not a summary and not a decision log entry. The actual sequence — what was believed, what contradicted it, and where it landed — kept as a thread you can read in order.
Decisions you can still defend.
The document says what was decided. It almost never says what was considered and dropped, or what would have to change for the decision to flip. That is the part you need when it comes back.
Free to start. No card. Takes about a minute.
What actually goes wrong
- 01A decision gets revisited every quarter because the reasoning behind it was never written anywhere findable.
- 02You inherit a roadmap and cannot tell which items are convictions and which are leftovers nobody has had the heart to kill.
- 03The specialist who knew the history left, and the history left with them.
What Oolkin does about it
Colleagues who hold a position
Give a colleague the standard you want defended and they will defend it against you. When a proposal violates something they were told in March, they will say so, and point at March.
Filed by project, not by chat
Each project keeps its own memory. Asking about one does not surface the other, and asking about all of them gets you the map rather than the pile.
What that looks like
worked exampleYou type
“A principal PM who has watched three companies ship the wrong thing quickly, and always asks what would have to be true for this to be a mistake.”
You get
Your counterpart
On a new proposal: “You settled this in March, on the grounds that the enterprise segment could not self-serve. Has that changed, or are we just tired of the answer?”
Three weeks later
Still holding the March reasoning, and still able to show you the exact entry it came from.
Describe them once. They take it from there.
Free to start. No card. Takes about a minute.