Read seven different questions, not one score
The seven dimensions examine whether the business is Understandable, Evidence-Rich, Useful, Accessible, Trustworthy, Actionable, and Measurable, based on the assessment’s stated evidence basis. The seven dimensions give an owner different places to look. A clear offer can still lack evidence; a reachable tool can still leave the decision unresolved. I would use those distinctions to identify useful work instead of flattening them into a single number.
“Understandable, evidence-rich, useful, accessible, trustworthy, actionable, measurable.”
— Curtiss Witt, The Decision Economy, Chapter 15.
What do Understandable and Evidence-Rich examine?
DERA examines Understandable, Evidence-Rich, Useful, Accessible, Trustworthy, Actionable, and Measurable. These are distinct questions about one offer, not seven independently validated predictors of AI recommendation. Use the names consistently and read them within the assessment’s BY YOUR ACCOUNT evidence basis.
A customer should be able to identify the offer and the situation it serves. Review the description for concrete meaning rather than familiarity inside the business. If the page relies on broad adjectives, add the facts that help an unfamiliar reader determine whether to investigate further.
An offer is not fully explained when its exclusions or requirements remain unclear. State what changes suitability and where the person can find details. This helps the reader make a more informed comparison without treating every person in a broad audience category as an automatic fit.
Evidence should support the consequential claims being made, with a source and scope the reader can inspect. It is not simply a large collection of documents or testimonials. Ask which statement each item establishes and whether the wording needs to be narrowed to match the support.
A source link, credential statement, or policy can become outdated. Assign responsibility for checking consequential support when relevant conditions change. The assessment records the owner’s account of that practice; it does not independently inspect and authenticate every piece of evidence the owner has in mind.
The comparison below describes two approaches to the work. It is a practical design contrast, not a measured claim that one approach always produces a better commercial outcome.
| Information and activity approach | Decision-support approach |
|---|---|
| Compress unlike conditions into a score. | Read each dimension’s question and reason. |
| Treat access as proof of usefulness. | Check whether the reachable help serves the choice. |
| Count activity as decision quality. | Keep completion, feedback and outcomes distinct. |
How are Useful and Accessible different?
The business should help the person understand a decision, not only learn more about the company. Identify the question, trade-off, or next step the resource clarifies. A page can be engaging and still leave the consequential uncertainty exactly where it was before the visit.
A customer may benefit by postponing, choosing another route, or learning what must be checked. Those outcomes can be consistent with decision support. Review whether the mechanism allows them instead of assuming that every useful result must lead directly to paid engagement with the tool owner.
A calculator, assessment, comparison, or planner needs relevant inputs and responsible logic. Its visual form does not establish value. Trace how the person’s circumstances affect the result and whether the output explains the choice more clearly than a generic piece of promotional content would.
People need to reach the information and operate the relevant experience. Review navigation, instructions, and the route to the full result. A useful mechanism hidden behind a broken link or confusing interaction presents an access problem even when the underlying decision logic is sound.
Where a machine route is relevant, its availability and behavior need appropriate verification. Do not assume that an endpoint or manifest alone establishes successful use. Accessible remains distinct from Useful: reaching the capability does not prove that its result helps the intended decision.
What does Trustworthy ask me to examine?
State what the information or tool does not establish. A customer should understand the conditions under which reliance is appropriate. The dimension’s name does not certify the business; it organizes reported practices that may help the owner identify where a claim or experience needs clarification.
If the provider has a commercial interest in the next step, make that relationship clear. A decision-support experience should not disguise a sales preference as neutral evidence. Transparency lets the customer weigh the guidance with a more accurate understanding of who provides it and why.
Explain relevant information collection and keep unnecessary personal data out of the decision flow. A useful assessment does not automatically need an email address or name to produce its result. Separate optional follow-up choices from the inputs needed for the decision mechanism itself.
A trustworthy answer can acknowledge circumstances where another route is appropriate. It does not need to make the provider’s offer win every time. Showing limits and alternatives helps the person evaluate fit rather than rely on a presentation designed to make all outcomes appear identical.
A positive descriptive status reflects the model’s interpretation of reported answers. It is not an independent endorsement or a numerical assurance of safety. Keep the evidence basis visible and identify which additional claim would need verification before being used publicly as proof.
The working rule I return to is this: “Understandable, evidence-rich, useful, accessible, trustworthy, actionable, measurable.” It is a way to judge the next piece of work, while keeping its evidence and limitations visible.
What makes a next step Actionable?
A result is more actionable when it identifies what someone can do next. Replace broad ambitions with a task that can be assigned and inspected. The user should understand the connection between the reported condition and the recommended work rather than receive an unexplained instruction to improve.
Opening a resource, submitting a request, and making a commitment are different actions. Explain which one is offered before the person clicks. This helps humans and authorized agents proceed deliberately without assuming that a vague button label implies a particular outcome.
A suggested action does not grant an agent authority to perform it. Keep user permission separate from tool capability and recommendation. The same principle applies when the next step is optional email, implementation help, or any other activity beyond receiving the assessment result.
For an improvement task, define what would show that it was completed. A changed sentence, repaired link, or documented process can be inspected. A general declaration that the business is more ready is not a sufficiently clear completion condition for the owner or person doing the work.
The assessment returns exactly three starting priorities. That scope is intended to make the next work manageable, not to claim that all possible improvements have been covered. Read the reasons and keep implementation decisions within the actual offer and conditions being reviewed. Decision Economy Institute: live capability manifest; accessed September 2026
What does Measurable establish?
Views can show that a page was encountered, but not whether the visitor understood the offer or made a better decision. Use the event for what it records. A stronger claim about useful help needs an observation designed to address that question rather than a renamed traffic count.
A completed assessment shows that the defined process reached its result. Feedback about clarity describes the user’s reported experience. Keep both separate from sales and from claims of causal improvement, so each observation remains meaningful instead of disappearing into one broad success metric.
Mentions, recommendations, links, and actual tool use are different behaviors. Record what was observed with relevant context. Do not describe every machine request as a customer with buying intent or infer a recommendation from a tool invocation that occurred for some other reason.
Needs checking, Needs attention, Partly in place, and In place by your account describe the model’s interpretation of reported conditions. Unknowns remain distinct from known gaps. None is an overall numerical readiness score, and the strongest wording still retains the owner-report qualification. (Witt, supplied author source set, September 2026)
Review one offer, identify the dimension’s concrete question, and decide what fact or practice deserves attention. DERA provides orientation from reported answers; further observation or testing must be identified separately. The framework is useful when it turns an abstract concern into a manageable next action.
What can I do with this today?
Start with one offer and write down the next decision this article helps you examine. Give the work a defined scope before adding a new page, tool or integration.
1. Review each dimension against one offer and audience.
2. Identify the consequential fact or condition that remains uncertain. Name who can check it and what would establish completion.
3. If you need help ordering the business work, complete the free Decision Economy Readiness Assessment. Read its reasons and three starting actions, then choose the first task you can inspect.
Our own example is deliberately bounded. The Institute’s Method explains the owner-reported result; its capability manifest declares what the tool can do; and its assessment schema makes the question bank and data contract inspectable. These September 2026 publisher documents describe the assessment. They do not independently establish better customer or business outcomes.
Read seven different questions, not one score
Before the next customer faces the same unresolved choice, identify the improvement that would make the answer more useful. Use the readiness assessment to turn your reported conditions into three starting actions, and keep the next evidence check in view.
Disclaimer
Based on your answers, this assessment suggests improvement priorities; it does not independently verify your business or predict AI recommendations, sales, or business quality.
FAQ
How does Understandable begin with the offer?
A customer should be able to identify the offer and the situation it serves. Review the description for concrete meaning rather than familiarity inside the business. If the page relies on broad adjectives, add the facts that help an unfamiliar reader determine whether to investigate further.
Why does usefulness depend on the mechanism?
A calculator, assessment, comparison, or planner needs relevant inputs and responsible logic. Its visual form does not establish value. Trace how the person’s circumstances affect the result and whether the output explains the choice more clearly than a generic piece of promotional content would.
Which interests should a user understand?
If the provider has a commercial interest in the next step, make that relationship clear. A decision-support experience should not disguise a sales preference as neutral evidence. Transparency lets the customer weigh the guidance with a more accurate understanding of who provides it and why.
What completion check is needed?
For an improvement task, define what would show that it was completed. A changed sentence, repaired link, or documented process can be inspected. A general declaration that the business is more ready is not a sufficiently clear completion condition for the owner or person doing the work.
How should descriptive statuses be read?
Needs checking, Needs attention, Partly in place, and In place by your account describe the model’s interpretation of reported conditions. Unknowns remain distinct from known gaps. None is an overall numerical readiness score, and the strongest wording still retains the owner-report qualification.
Do I need to share contact details before seeing the assessment result?
No. The complete result is available before an optional email request. If a contact commitment has held you back, try the free readiness assessment and read the plan first. Emailing it and consenting to future updates are separate choices. The result remains BY YOUR ACCOUNT.
References
Curtiss Witt. The Decision Economy, updated author-supplied manuscript, Chapter 15 for the quoted decision rule; the supplied manuscript also grounds the framework. Supplied September 2026; unpublished manuscript, so no public URL is asserted.
Decision Economy Institute: live capability manifest. Publisher’s capability declaration, accessed September 10, 2026. Describes the available routes and their limits; not an independent test of every operation.
Decision_Economy_DSA_Step_1_Decision_Model(2).docx. Supplied September 2026. Controlling assessment model and distinctions among self-report, evidence, applicability, and outcomes.
Decision Economy Institute: How this assessment works. Publisher’s own Method; ruleset de-readiness-1.0.0, accessed September 10, 2026. Not an independent outcomes study.
Decision Economy Institute: Assessment schema and question bank. Publisher’s technical contract; accessed September 10, 2026. Data shape and published question bank, not proof of real-world decision quality.
Continue exploring
What business information should I make clear for AI-assisted customers?
Can a website be easy for AI to access but still be unhelpful?
What does the Decision Economy Readiness Assessment tell me?
Tags: Decision Economy readiness dimensions; Decision Economy; Decision Economy Institute; Curtiss Witt; customer decisions; decision support; business readiness; DERA; Better Choices; Readiness.