Rationale Schema

Rationales are the reasoned justifications that bridge triggers (what happened) to responses (what we're doing). They document why the organization is taking action, providing the critical reasoning layer in the Strategic Response Model.

Schema Version: 2.1
Schema Location: /schemas/extensions/rationale.schema.json
Specification: JSON Schema Draft-07

Overview

What is a Rationale?

A rationale captures the logical reasoning that justifies a strategic response. It answers the questions:

Why are we responding to this trigger?
What factors influenced the decision?
What alternatives were considered?
How confident are we in this approach?

The Role of Rationales

Without rationales, organizations have triggers and responses but no documented reasoning. This creates:

Audit gaps — "Why did we do this?"
Knowledge loss — Reasoning leaves with people
Inconsistency — Similar triggers get different responses
Poor decisions — No structured thinking process

Rationale Drivers

Rationales are categorized by their primary driver—the core motivation for the response:

Driver	Description	Typical Triggers
`Policy compliance`	Mandatory adherence to policy or regulation	Regulatory, compliance, audit
`Risk mitigation`	Reducing organizational risk exposure	Security incidents, audit findings
`Stakeholder expectation`	Meeting stakeholder needs or demands	Customer feedback, investor pressure
`Strategic alignment`	Advancing strategic objectives	Strategic planning, market opportunity
`Operational efficiency`	Improving operational performance	Performance threshold, cost pressure
`Competitive positioning`	Responding to competitive dynamics	Market intelligence, competitor action
`Innovation opportunity`	Capitalizing on innovation potential	Technology change, R&D breakthrough

Rationale Types by Domain

Different domains have specific rationale types that capture domain-specific reasoning:

Strategy Domain Rationale Types

Type	Description
`strategic-pivot`	Fundamental change in strategic direction
`goal-realignment`	Adjusting strategic objectives
`portfolio-rationalization`	Optimizing strategic portfolio
`market-repositioning`	Changing competitive position

Customer Domain Rationale Types

Type	Description
`customer-needs-based`	Response to identified customer needs
`experience-improvement`	Enhancing customer experience
`segment-targeting`	Focus on specific customer segments
`retention-driven`	Reducing customer churn

Finance Domain Rationale Types

Type	Description
`cost-optimization`	Reducing operational costs
`revenue-growth`	Increasing revenue streams
`investment-return`	Improving ROI on investments
`capital-efficiency`	Better use of capital

Risk Management Domain Rationale Types

Type	Description
`risk-reduction`	Lowering risk exposure
`control-enhancement`	Strengthening controls
`compliance-assurance`	Ensuring regulatory compliance
`resilience-building`	Improving organizational resilience

Supply Chain Domain Rationale Types

Type	Description
`supply-continuity`	Ensuring supply reliability
`logistics-optimization`	Improving logistics efficiency
`supplier-diversification`	Reducing supplier concentration
`cost-reduction`	Lowering supply chain costs

Rationale Attributes

Core Attributes

Attribute	Type	Required	Description
`rationaleID`	string (UUID)	Yes	Unique identifier
`rationaleTitle`	string	Yes	Summary title
`description`	string	Yes	Detailed explanation
`trigger`	reference	Yes	Link to triggering event or strategic intent
`driver`	enum	Yes	Primary motivation category

Extended Attributes

Attribute	Type	Required	Description
`rationaleType`	enum	No	Domain-specific rationale type
`linkedDomains`	array	No	Domains affected by this rationale
`confidenceLevel`	enum	No	Confidence in the reasoning
`evidenceBase`	array	No	Supporting evidence
`alternativesConsidered`	array	No	Options that were evaluated
`reasoningPattern`	enum	No	Type of reasoning applied
`approvalAuthority`	string	No	Who approved the rationale
`approvalDate`	date	No	When rationale was approved

Confidence Levels

Level	Description	Evidence Requirement
`high`	Strong evidence supports reasoning	Multiple sources, validated data
`medium`	Reasonable evidence, some uncertainty	Single source or partial data
`low`	Limited evidence, significant uncertainty	Expert judgment, assumptions

Reasoning Patterns

Pattern	Description
`deductive`	General principle applied to specific case
`inductive`	Pattern observed, generalization made
`abductive`	Best explanation for observed facts
`analogical`	Similar past situation referenced
`cost-benefit`	Trade-off analysis performed
`risk-based`	Risk assessment drives decision

JSON Schema Definition

{
  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
  "$id": "https://orthogramic.com/schemas/extensions/rationale.schema.json",
  "title": "Rationale",
  "description": "Schema for rationales that justify strategic responses",
  "type": "object",
  "required": ["rationaleID", "rationaleTitle", "description", "trigger", "driver"],
  "properties": {
    "rationaleID": {
      "type": "string",
      "format": "uuid",
      "description": "Unique identifier for the rationale"
    },
    "rationaleTitle": {
      "type": "string",
      "description": "Summary title of the rationale"
    },
    "description": {
      "type": "string",
      "description": "Detailed explanation of the reasoning"
    },
    "trigger": {
      "type": "object",
      "properties": {
        "triggerID": {
          "type": "string",
          "format": "uuid"
        },
        "triggerType": {
          "type": "string",
          "enum": ["trigger", "strategic-intent"]
        }
      },
      "required": ["triggerID", "triggerType"],
      "description": "Reference to the triggering event or strategic intent"
    },
    "driver": {
      "type": "string",
      "enum": [
        "Policy compliance",
        "Risk mitigation",
        "Stakeholder expectation",
        "Strategic alignment",
        "Operational efficiency",
        "Competitive positioning",
        "Innovation opportunity"
      ],
      "description": "Primary motivation for the response"
    },
    "rationaleType": {
      "type": "string",
      "description": "Domain-specific rationale type"
    },
    "linkedDomains": {
      "type": "array",
      "items": {
        "type": "string",
        "enum": [
          "Strategy", "Capabilities", "Initiatives", "Policy",
          "Information", "Performance", "Products", "Services",
          "Stakeholder", "Value Stream", "Customer", "Market",
          "Finance", "Risk Management", "Supply Chain", "Technology",
          "People", "Organization"
        ]
      },
      "description": "Domains affected by this rationale"
    },
    "confidenceLevel": {
      "type": "string",
      "enum": ["high", "medium", "low"],
      "description": "Confidence in the reasoning"
    },
    "evidenceBase": {
      "type": "array",
      "items": {
        "type": "object",
        "properties": {
          "evidenceType": {
            "type": "string",
            "enum": [
              "quantitative-data",
              "qualitative-research",
              "expert-opinion",
              "regulatory-guidance",
              "industry-benchmark",
              "historical-precedent",
              "stakeholder-input"
            ]
          },
          "description": {
            "type": "string"
          },
          "sourceReference": {
            "type": "string",
            "format": "uri"
          },
          "weight": {
            "type": "string",
            "enum": ["primary", "supporting", "contextual"]
          }
        }
      },
      "description": "Evidence supporting the rationale"
    },
    "alternativesConsidered": {
      "type": "array",
      "items": {
        "type": "object",
        "properties": {
          "alternativeDescription": {
            "type": "string"
          },
          "reasonNotSelected": {
            "type": "string"
          },
          "evaluationCriteria": {
            "type": "array",
            "items": {
              "type": "string"
            }
          }
        }
      },
      "description": "Alternatives that were evaluated"
    },
    "reasoningPattern": {
      "type": "string",
      "enum": [
        "deductive",
        "inductive",
        "abductive",
        "analogical",
        "cost-benefit",
        "risk-based"
      ],
      "description": "Type of reasoning applied"
    },
    "approvalAuthority": {
      "type": "string",
      "description": "Role or person who approved the rationale"
    },
    "approvalDate": {
      "type": "string",
      "format": "date",
      "description": "Date the rationale was approved"
    },
    "metadata": {
      "type": "object",
      "additionalProperties": true
    }
  }
}

Examples

Compliance Rationale

{
  "rationaleID": "660e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440001",
  "rationaleTitle": "Privacy Act Compliance Response",
  "description": "The organization must implement enhanced consent management and data subject request processing to comply with the Privacy Act Amendment 2024. Failure to comply would result in regulatory penalties up to $50M and reputational damage. The 12-month compliance window requires immediate action.",
  "trigger": {
    "triggerID": "550e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440001",
    "triggerType": "trigger"
  },
  "driver": "Policy compliance",
  "rationaleType": "compliance-assurance",
  "linkedDomains": ["Policy", "Capabilities", "Information", "Technology"],
  "confidenceLevel": "high",
  "evidenceBase": [
    {
      "evidenceType": "regulatory-guidance",
      "description": "Official regulatory impact statement",
      "sourceReference": "https://legislation.gov.au/privacy-act-2024-ris",
      "weight": "primary"
    },
    {
      "evidenceType": "expert-opinion",
      "description": "Legal counsel assessment of compliance requirements",
      "sourceReference": "internal://legal/privacy-assessment-2024",
      "weight": "primary"
    }
  ],
  "alternativesConsidered": [
    {
      "alternativeDescription": "Minimal compliance approach - meet only mandatory requirements",
      "reasonNotSelected": "High risk of regulatory interpretation challenges and future remediation costs",
      "evaluationCriteria": ["risk", "cost", "sustainability"]
    },
    {
      "alternativeDescription": "Outsource consent management to third-party provider",
      "reasonNotSelected": "Data sovereignty concerns and ongoing dependency risk",
      "evaluationCriteria": ["risk", "control", "cost"]
    }
  ],
  "reasoningPattern": "risk-based",
  "approvalAuthority": "Chief Risk Officer",
  "approvalDate": "2024-07-01"
}

Strategic Alignment Rationale

{
  "rationaleID": "660e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440002",
  "rationaleTitle": "AI-First Customer Service Transformation",
  "description": "Implementing AI-powered customer service capabilities will differentiate us from competitors, reduce cost-to-serve by 30%, and improve customer satisfaction through faster resolution times. This aligns with our 2025 strategy of becoming the most customer-centric provider in the market.",
  "trigger": {
    "triggerID": "770e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440001",
    "triggerType": "strategic-intent"
  },
  "driver": "Strategic alignment",
  "rationaleType": "market-repositioning",
  "linkedDomains": ["Strategy", "Capabilities", "Technology", "Customer", "Performance"],
  "confidenceLevel": "medium",
  "evidenceBase": [
    {
      "evidenceType": "industry-benchmark",
      "description": "Gartner research on AI in customer service",
      "sourceReference": "https://gartner.com/research/ai-customer-service-2024",
      "weight": "supporting"
    },
    {
      "evidenceType": "quantitative-data",
      "description": "Pilot results showing 45% reduction in handling time",
      "sourceReference": "internal://cx/ai-pilot-results-2024",
      "weight": "primary"
    },
    {
      "evidenceType": "stakeholder-input",
      "description": "Customer survey indicating preference for 24/7 support",
      "sourceReference": "internal://cx/customer-survey-q2-2024",
      "weight": "supporting"
    }
  ],
  "alternativesConsidered": [
    {
      "alternativeDescription": "Expand human customer service team",
      "reasonNotSelected": "Does not scale cost-effectively and cannot provide 24/7 coverage",
      "evaluationCriteria": ["cost", "scalability", "availability"]
    },
    {
      "alternativeDescription": "Outsource to BPO provider",
      "reasonNotSelected": "Quality concerns and loss of customer relationship control",
      "evaluationCriteria": ["quality", "control", "cost"]
    }
  ],
  "reasoningPattern": "cost-benefit",
  "approvalAuthority": "Executive Committee",
  "approvalDate": "2024-02-15"
}

Risk Mitigation Rationale

{
  "rationaleID": "660e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440003",
  "rationaleTitle": "Core Banking Platform Modernization",
  "description": "The legacy core banking platform reaches end-of-support in December 2025, creating unacceptable operational and security risks. Modernization to a cloud-native platform will eliminate vendor dependency risk, improve resilience, and enable future capability development.",
  "trigger": {
    "triggerID": "550e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440002",
    "triggerType": "trigger"
  },
  "driver": "Risk mitigation",
  "rationaleType": "resilience-building",
  "linkedDomains": ["Technology", "Capabilities", "Risk Management", "Operations"],
  "confidenceLevel": "high",
  "evidenceBase": [
    {
      "evidenceType": "quantitative-data",
      "description": "Vendor end-of-support notification with firm date",
      "sourceReference": "internal://vendor/eos-notification-2024",
      "weight": "primary"
    },
    {
      "evidenceType": "expert-opinion",
      "description": "Enterprise architecture assessment of platform risks",
      "sourceReference": "internal://ea/platform-risk-assessment-2024",
      "weight": "primary"
    }
  ],
  "alternativesConsidered": [
    {
      "alternativeDescription": "Negotiate extended support with vendor",
      "reasonNotSelected": "Vendor declined; no commercial terms available",
      "evaluationCriteria": ["feasibility", "cost"]
    },
    {
      "alternativeDescription": "In-house maintenance without vendor support",
      "reasonNotSelected": "Unacceptable security risk and regulatory concerns",
      "evaluationCriteria": ["risk", "compliance"]
    }
  ],
  "reasoningPattern": "risk-based",
  "approvalAuthority": "Board Technology Committee",
  "approvalDate": "2024-04-30"
}

Domain-Specific Extensions

The rationale schema supports domain-specific extensions through the metadata property:

Customer Domain Extension

{
  "metadata": {
    "customerDomain": {
      "affectedSegments": ["premium", "business"],
      "customerInsightSources": ["survey", "behavior-analytics", "complaints"],
      "experienceImpact": "positive",
      "retentionImplication": "high"
    }
  }
}

Finance Domain Extension

{
  "metadata": {
    "financeDomain": {
      "financialImpact": {
        "capitalRequired": 5000000,
        "expectedROI": 0.25,
        "paybackPeriod": "24 months"
      },
      "budgetSource": "strategic-investment-fund",
      "financialRisks": ["implementation-overrun", "benefit-shortfall"]
    }
  }
}

Risk Management Domain Extension

{
  "metadata": {
    "riskDomain": {
      "riskCategory": "operational",
      "currentRiskRating": "high",
      "targetRiskRating": "low",
      "controlsAffected": ["access-control", "data-encryption"],
      "residualRiskAcceptance": "CRO"
    }
  }
}

Usage Guidelines

Writing Effective Rationales

State the reasoning clearly — Explain the "why" in plain language
Link to evidence — Reference data, research, or expert input
Document alternatives — Show what else was considered
Assess confidence honestly — Don't overstate certainty
Get appropriate approval — Match authority to impact

Common Mistakes to Avoid

Mistake	Problem	Solution
Vague reasoning	"Because we need to" doesn't explain	Be specific about why
Missing evidence	Assertions without support	Cite sources and data
No alternatives	Appears predetermined	Document what else was considered
Wrong driver	Misclassifies the motivation	Choose the primary driver carefully
No approval	Lacks governance	Ensure appropriate sign-off

For Data Engineers

Rationales can be enriched with data lineage information showing which data assets informed the decision. Consider linking evidence references to your data catalog to create full traceability from data to business decisions.

Strategic Response Model Overview — Full SRM documentation
Trigger Schema — What prompts rationales
Performance Indicators — How success is measured

Overview​

What is a Rationale?​

The Role of Rationales​

Rationale Drivers​

Rationale Types by Domain​

Strategy Domain Rationale Types​

Customer Domain Rationale Types​

Finance Domain Rationale Types​

Risk Management Domain Rationale Types​

Supply Chain Domain Rationale Types​

Rationale Attributes​

Core Attributes​

Extended Attributes​

Confidence Levels​

Reasoning Patterns​

JSON Schema Definition​

Examples​

Compliance Rationale​

Strategic Alignment Rationale​

Risk Mitigation Rationale​

Domain-Specific Extensions​

Customer Domain Extension​

Finance Domain Extension​

Risk Management Domain Extension​

Usage Guidelines​

Writing Effective Rationales​

Common Mistakes to Avoid​

Related Documentation​