Think eisenhower moscow pareto

<!-- thinking-framework-skills | https://github.com/product-on-purpose/thinking-framework-skills | Apache-2.0 -->

Eisenhower / MoSCoW / Pareto

These are the three most widely taught lightweight prioritization presets: the Eisenhower urgent-important 2x2, MoSCoW four-bucket scope cutting, and the Pareto vital-few chart. They are famous, frequently requested, and weakly evidenced as decision tools. This skill runs whichever one was asked for honestly: it leads with the caveat, then produces that single preset with the discipline its bare template omits.

Before you run this: the evidence caveat

These three sit at tier P (practitioner heuristic, no controlled effectiveness evidence). They are not one method but a bundle of three different operations stapled together by the word "prioritization", and that heterogeneity is the central fact: Eisenhower is categorical triage by two canned axes, MoSCoW is ordinal bucketing against one implicit scale, Pareto is a descriptive concentration observation. None has a controlled or comparative study measuring it against an alternative on decision quality. The strong study quoted to make Eisenhower look evidence-backed, Zhu, Yang and Hsee (2018), measures the mere urgency effect - the bias the matrix targets - not the matrix as a remedy; borrowing that grade would be laundering a finding about the disease onto a claim about the cure. MoSCoW's best-documented failure is category inflation: anything not a "Must" rarely gets built, so users mark almost everything "Must" and the method stops where the hard ranking begins. Pareto's concentration is real but domain-dependent and usually not 80-20: Kim, Singh and Winer (2017) measured a ratio averaging about 0.73 across 22 packaged-goods categories. Never invent an effectiveness number, and never report a clean 80-20 split the data does not support.

When to Use

• The user asks for an Eisenhower matrix, a MoSCoW list, or a Pareto chart by name and you should run it honestly rather than refuse.
• A fast, cheap prioritization is genuinely wanted and the cost of getting it slightly wrong is low, and you will add the discipline the bare template lacks.
• As a quick jolt: Eisenhower when urgent noise is crowding out the important; MoSCoW when stakeholders need a shared word for "not this release"; Pareto when you want to check whether a minority of causes drives most of an effect before spreading effort evenly.

When NOT to Use

• When the job is to focus a system on its one binding constraint: use think-theory-of-constraints, which adds the capacity-versus-demand test that proves which few are actually binding (the step a bare Pareto chart lacks, since it shows concentration but not causation).
• When the decision turns on how much deliberation a choice deserves (reversibility, urgency, stakes): use think-one-way-vs-two-way-door rather than forcing it into an urgent-important grid.
• When you need to compare items against criteria that actually matter: use think-decision-option-review with the criteria named honestly, instead of MoSCoW's single canned axis and pre-binned labels.
• When the canned axis would be treated as the analysis instead of a prompt, or when the real driver is cost, dependency, or value that the preset cannot see.

Instructions

When asked to run one of these presets, follow these steps:

1. Lead with the caveat. State up front that this is a bundle of three weakly-evidenced presets, that you will run the one named, and that the value is the discipline you add, not the template. Do not invent an effectiveness number.
2. Identify which one. If the user named the preset (Eisenhower / MoSCoW / Pareto), run that one. If they did not, ask, or pick the closest fit and say which you chose and why.
3. Run the one preset, honestly:
   • Eisenhower: a 2x2 of urgent x important, each item placed in one quadrant, with one canned action per quadrant (do now / schedule / delegate / delete). Name where urgent-important is the wrong pair of axes for this decision.
   • MoSCoW: four ordinal buckets - Must / Should / Could / Won't (this time) - against a stated timebox. Guard against category inflation: justify every Must against the timebox, and rank within the Must bucket so the method does not stop where the hard choice begins.
   • Pareto: a ranked-contribution list with each item's share and a cumulative running total, and a cut line marking the vital few. State the measured concentration; do not assume 80-20.
4. Name the limit. Flag the one place the canned template hides the real driver (Eisenhower's assumed axes, MoSCoW's intra-bucket ranking, Pareto's concentration-not-causation), and point to the rigorous skill if that limit is binding.
5. Emit the single chosen artifact per references/TEMPLATE.md, caveat leading.

Output Format

Use the template in references/TEMPLATE.md. The deliverable is exactly one of the three artifacts (the one asked for), produced with its discipline added, the caveat leading, and the limit named - not all three, and not a bare template presented as analysis.

Quality Checklist

Before finalizing, verify:

• Leads with the evidence caveat (Zhu, Yang and Hsee 2018 measures the urgency bias, not the matrix; Pareto is usually not 80-20) before the artifact; does not overclaim the method's value.
• Exactly one of the three presets is produced (the one named), not a bundle of all three.
• Eisenhower: each item in one quadrant with a canned action; or MoSCoW: every Must justified against the timebox and ranked within the bucket; or Pareto: shares plus a cumulative total and a cut line, with the real measured concentration stated.
• The place the canned template hides the real driver is named, with the rigorous alternative pointed to.
• No invented effectiveness number and no assumed 80-20 split appear.

Evidence

Tier P (practitioner heuristic; recognized and useful, but no controlled effectiveness evidence). It ships as a contested lens, caveat-first and explicit-request-only, because these are among the most-requested prioritization tools in the world and an honest run that leads with the deficiency and adds the missing discipline beats a flat refusal. The Eisenhower 2x2 is Covey's "Time Management Matrix" (1989) from a 1954 Eisenhower remark; the strong urgency-effect study (Zhu, Yang and Hsee 2018) measures the bias, not the matrix. MoSCoW is Clegg (1994, later DSDM). Pareto is Juran's "vital few" generalization of Pareto's 1896 observation; the honest measured ratio is about 0.73 (Kim, Singh and Winer 2017). Evidence is transferred from human contexts, not AI-validated. Full grading: evidence/dossier.md.

Examples

See references/EXAMPLE.md for a completed honest run (a MoSCoW scope cut with category inflation guarded and the intra-bucket ranking added).