Decision Memo

Recommendation

Advance the utility-reduction pathway for the next design sprint while maintaining selectivity guardrails.

Basis

• Framing established boundary and first-order economics.
• Assumption Failure Map identified selectivity degradation and steam volatility as primary risks.
• Sensitivity Leverage Scan showed steam price and selectivity dominate leverage.

Confidence level

Moderate (0.67 on 0-1 internal confidence scale).

Confidence heuristic: 0.67 reflects that two top risks remain only partially resolved (steam contract bounds and catalyst selectivity drift), while core framing and leverage direction are stable.

Why this is the best current choice

At current assumptions, a 10% utility improvement yields larger cost impact than incremental selectivity gain beyond 78%, with lower implementation complexity.

Risks and controls

1. Selectivity slip below 72% could invalidate utility-first strategy.
2. Purity-spec tightening could move leverage to separation intensity.

Reversal conditions

Switch recommendation if either condition is observed: - Catalyst test campaign shows sustained selectivity <72%. - Confirmed steam cost falls below $6/GJ for the planning horizon.

Next-week evidence package

• Updated selectivity time-on-stream data.
• Contractual utility pricing bounds.
• One high-purity separation scenario with revised duty and CAPEX estimate.

Mindsets demonstrated

• Decision
• Tradeoff
• Fragility

Rubric snapshot (example)

• Decision defense: 4/4
• Tradeoff clarity: 4/4
• Assumption quality: 3/4