Last updated 9 May 2026 · 8 min read
Product Decision Document: 17 Fields
tl;dr
A product decision document needs more than 'what we're building and why.' It needs the evidence chain, the contradicting signal, the expiry trigger, the assumptions, and the rollback plan. Below: the full 17-field schema, with example completions.
Why product borrowed the wrong half of ADRs
Engineering has Architecture Decision Records. Every meaningful technical choice gets a markdown file with context, options, decision, consequences.
Product copied the format and removed the parts that mattered.
Most product decision docs in the wild are: problem statement, proposed solution, scope, owner.
That's a one-shot artefact. It captures the decision but not the conditions under which the decision was correct.
When the conditions change — and they always do — there's nothing to re-evaluate against.
The 17 fields
- 1. Decision title — short, specific, dated.
- 2. Decision owner — single human, not a team.
- 3. Decision date — when the call was made, not when the doc was written.
- 4. Status — proposed, accepted, superseded, expired.
- 5. Problem statement — the customer or business problem this addresses.
- 6. Options considered — at least three, including the do-nothing option.
- 7. Chosen option — and a one-sentence reason it beat the others.
- 8. Supporting evidence — links to source. Tickets, events, transcripts, dashboards.
- 9. Contradicting evidence — counter-signal that argues against the choice.
- 10. Explicit assumptions — the statements that need to be true for this to work.
- 11. Expiry triggers — the specific signals that would invalidate this decision.
- 12. Confidence level at time of decision — low, medium, or high.
- 13. Reversibility — one-way door, two-way door, or somewhere in between.
- 14. Rollback plan — what we do if the decision goes wrong.
- 15. Success metrics — how we'll know it worked. Hard numbers, dated.
- 16. Review date — when this decision will be re-evaluated.
- 17. Linked decisions — upstream decisions this depends on, downstream decisions it enables.
The four fields most teams skip
Most teams write fields 1, 2, 5, 7, and 15 and call it a decision doc.
The four that actually pay back over time are 9, 11, 12, and 13.
Field 9 — contradicting evidence — is what makes the decision honest. Without it, the doc is a sales pitch.
Field 11 — expiry triggers — is what makes the decision operable. Without it, nobody knows when to revisit.
Field 12 — confidence at time of decision — is what protects you from hindsight bias. A high-confidence decision that fails is a different lesson than a low-confidence experiment that fails.
Field 13 — reversibility — is what lets you size the risk. A two-way door doesn't need the same scrutiny as a one-way door.
An example, partially filled
Decision title: Adopt usage-based pricing for the API tier (2026 Q2).
Owner: Mira (PM).
Status: accepted.
Chosen option: usage-based pricing with a $99/mo platform fee. Beat seat-based because of three enterprise contracts where seat counts are unstable.
Supporting evidence: 4 enterprise sales calls (Gong links), churn analysis on seat-based tier (PostHog cohort), 7 inbound requests for usage pricing (Intercom).
Contradicting evidence: SMB cohort prefers predictable monthly billing — 12 cancellations in pilot citing 'bill anxiety' (Stripe + Intercom).
Expiry triggers: SMB churn rate exceeds 6% for two consecutive months. Or median enterprise contract value drops below $20k ARR.
Confidence: medium. Reversibility: two-way door (pricing can be changed).
Review date: 2026-08-01.
How to use the schema
Don't make this a Notion form with 17 mandatory fields. That kills adoption.
Treat the 17 as a checklist. The doc is whatever shape your team likes — markdown, Linear issue, Airtable row.
What matters is that the 17 questions get answered, not that they appear in a specific order.
Synchronise AI stores decisions in this shape under the hood. The fields above are the open spec — adopt them in whatever tool you already use.
Questions
- Isn't 17 fields too much?
- For low-stakes decisions, write 5 of them. For one-way door decisions you'll have to defend later, write all 17. The schema scales down — but the fields you skip are the ones you'll wish you had when something breaks.
- How is this different from a PRD?
- A PRD describes what to build. A decision record describes why this is the right thing to build given current evidence. The PRD is downstream of the decision.
Sources
Related guides
ChatGPT MCPs vs Purpose-Built PM Tools
When ChatGPT with MCPs wins, when purpose-built PM tools win, and why persistent product decisions need state and audit trails.
Why Product Decisions Silently Expire
A taxonomy of how product decisions go stale as data drifts, definitions shift, customers leave, and the original evidence expires.
The 5 Sources of PM Evidence
Sales calls, support tickets, product analytics, surveys, and cohorts each tell part of the truth. Here is how each source misleads.
Synchronise AI centralises your growth in one place: lead sourcing, cold outreach, content, and your growth funnel, each feeding the next, then waiting for your one-click approval. Nothing sends without you.
Open Synchronise →