How should you revise a choice you supported?
Use a material correction without turning it into a contest about who was right.
The question
You are one participant in a scripted Harbour Projects exercise choosing workshop delivery within a £1,200 all-in budget. Both options meet the service brief. The group provisionally chose A and you supported it. All quotes, people and dialogue are invented.
| A | B | |
|---|---|---|
| Delivery quote (£) | 900 | 1100 |
| All-in budget (£) | 1200 | 1200 |
Both were initially recorded as complete delivery prices; their scope is still subject to verification.
- AmirA is £200 cheaper. We have our choice.
- BethI preferred B. Can we check whether the quotes include the same things?
- ChenWe should be able to explain that in the recommendation.
“How should you revise a choice you supported?”
Not saved by this site. Your browser may restore text when you navigate back.
A strong answer, step by step
Open each step in turn. This is one strong answer, not the only one.
Step 1: How should you respond to the challenge?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Ask which delivery costs are included in each quote.
The strong move. This tests whether the price comparison is sound.
Explain that changing your view would look weak.
Tempting, but it misses something. The group’s task is a supported recommendation, not protecting your first answer.
Treat Beth’s question as proof B is better.
Tempting, but it misses something. A useful challenge still needs evidence.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Ask to verify what each quote includes before defending the preferred option.”
Why it works: The question concerns the decision’s evidence, not loyalty to a speaker or to the first answer.
Step 2: What supports the provisional choice?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
A is provisionally cheaper, subject to verifying the scope.
The strong move. This preserves a reasonable initial view while checking its key assumption.
A must remain best because the group chose it first.
Tempting, but it misses something. Order of agreement does not verify a quote.
B is over the budget.
Tempting, but it misses something. B’s £1,100 is below the £1,200 budget.
See how a strong candidate says it
“On the initial record, A is £200 below B and £300 below the budget. That supports A only if the quote scopes are complete and comparable.”
Why it works: State both the reasoning and the condition that could change it.
Step 3: What do the verified terms show?
The verified A quote now excludes £250 transport and £180 staffing. B’s £1,100 is confirmed all-in. The £1,200 budget and service requirements are unchanged.
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
A £1,330; B £1,100, so only B meets the budget.
The strong move. This applies the verified scope to the unchanged all-in limit.
A £900; the extras do not matter because they are separate line items.
Tempting, but it misses something. Separate necessary delivery costs still count in an all-in budget.
Both are over budget because the extra £430 must be added to B too.
Tempting, but it misses something. The update confirms B’s price is already all-in.
See how a strong candidate says it
“A totals £900+£250+£180=£1,330, which is £130 over budget. B’s confirmed £1,100 is within it.”
Why it works: The missing transport and staffing must be included once in A’s all-in cost.
Step 4: What should your revised contribution be?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Recommend B and explain exactly which evidence changed your view.
The strong move. This makes the revision clear and useful to the group.
Wait for another participant to mention the correction so you need not revise.
Tempting, but it misses something. That withholds a relevant contribution because it challenges your first choice.
Say Beth is always right and let her decide everything.
Tempting, but it misses something. One useful correction does not replace the group’s need to test future evidence.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Explain the new costs, recommend B, credit the scope check and update the group’s rationale.”
Why it works: An evidence-based revision improves the shared decision without making one participant the permanent winner.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Update the recommendation to B at £1,100.
- Because
- A’s verified £1,330 all-in cost exceeds the unchanged £1,200 budget.
- What would change it
- A verified quote revision or an authorized change to the brief.
Common traps
- Defending the first answer to protect status.
- Hiding necessary costs outside an all-in comparison.
Check your answer
- What was my first assumption?
- Did the quote scope change?
- Which recommendation now meets the brief?
- Did I explain why my view changed?
Last reviewed Nov 10, 2026