Revisit the goals and values — the ethical element

The third line

The third R-psp-4 line — revisits the client's goals and values — exists because a matrix can be built correctly and still produce an answer the client cannot accept. Stage 1 wrote down what each stakeholder wants and the constraints the client stated; stage 3 turned the objectives into weighted criteria. But a value is not a criterion. A criterion is traded off — cost against reliability, at a stated weight. A value or a rule — we do not lay off staff in a year we are profitable, we do not take gifts from suppliers, we do not mislead the bank — is a constraint: an alternative that violates it is out, whatever its total. So before the recommendation is final, two checks. Does the winner still serve the objectives written in stage 1? And does it violate any value or rule the client holds or the profession imposes?

Worked example — Lakeshore's check

Objectives. Priya named reliable production and preserving cash; the accounts want on-time delivery; the staff want their jobs. The lease: reliability restored by a new, maintained press ✓; no outlay and no debt ✓; both operators kept ✓; on-time delivery is the mechanism by which the accounts are kept ✓. The winner serves every stage-1 objective, and the memo says so in one paragraph, objective by objective — that is the line being earned.

Values — and the tickets. The case planted one: Marcus Doyle, the press vendor's sales rep, offered two Leafs tickets "to say thanks for considering us" and asked what the lease quote was. Nothing in the matrix scores this, and that is the point: it is not a criterion; it is a threat to the independence of the person building the matrix. Handled inside the recommendation, it reads:

> The vendor's representative offered me hospitality during the evaluation and asked for a competitor's quote. I declined both, disclosed the approach to my manager at Wren Advisory before scoring, and did not share the quote. The vendor's press was kept in the evaluation and scored on its merits, and the recommendation to obtain three lease quotes (next steps, item 2) means no single vendor is favoured. I record this so that Priya can rely on the analysis as independent.

Disclosed, declined, the vendor kept on merit, the disclosure recorded where the reader will see it. Five lines of R-conflict — a Memra rubric that mirrors the stage/genre criteria the open sources agree on — are earned in that paragraph: the conflict stated in one sentence · the value or rule at stake named (independence; the professional's duty not to accept inducements) · a specific, proportionate action · a respectful, non-accusatory tone (Doyle is not called corrupt; the offer is described and declined) · a next step (three quotes).

When the winner violates a value

Suppose D — outsourcing — had led the matrix, and Priya had said in stage 1 that she would not make anyone redundant in a profitable year. D is overridden: it is not recommended with a caveat, and it is not re-scored until it loses. The memo says the matrix leads with D, that D violates a stated constraint, and that the recommendation is therefore the highest-scoring alternative that does not — with the cost of honouring the value stated in dollars, so the client sees what the value costs. That is respect for the client's values and honesty about their price, in the same paragraph.

Write the clinic's ethical paragraph

Grand River Family Dental's planted issue: the software vendor has offered Tomas Reyes, the office manager who will choose the system, a referral bonus for signing. The paragraph: the vendor has offered the office manager a referral bonus for signing; the conflict is that the person selecting the system would gain personally from selecting this vendor. I recommend that Tomas disclose the offer to the dentists and decline it, that the vendor remain on the shortlist and be scored against the same criteria as the other two, and that the dentists — not Tomas alone — approve the final choice. Conflict, value, proportionate action, respectful tone, next step — inside the recommendation.

Do it cold

The rule in one line: objectives are checked; values are constraints; the planted issue is handled inside the recommendation with R-conflict's five lines, and the handling is recorded where the reader will see it.