Design decisions get challenged when stakeholders can’t see the reasoning. The work might be strong, but if the logic isn’t visible, people fill in the gaps themselves. That’s how you end up debating style when the real question was direction.

As much as possible, I treat decision logic as a deliverable. The structure I often go for is:

• The call. What direction we’re taking, stated plainly.
• The criteria. What “good” means here: user value, brand intent, technical risk, time-to-learn.
• The tradeoffs. What we’re giving up and why it’s worth it.
• The bet. What has to be true for this to work.
• The implications. What this changes – what we prioritize, stop doing, or build differently.
• Next steps. What decisions this unlocks and what the team should do next.

This structure works well when communicating strategy or creative direction early. When you still don’t have perfect evidence. You need a clear outcome, a believable path, and a concrete plan for what happens next.

It’s also crucial to speak the same language as the other stakeholders.

• Designers. Stay close to the system: principles, constraints, craft implications.
• Product and engineering. Translate into scope, sequence, dependencies, and risk.
• Leadership. Keep it simple: what this enables, what it costs, what we’re committing to.

It’s tough to be the voice that rallies the team around a direction. Personally, to feel secure in this position and own the direction, I often need to overprepare. And writing down (or laying it out on a board) the narrative is crucial for bringing structure and clarity to my thinking.