Worked example library

Recommendation Report Examples: Options, Evidence & Decisions

Start with the worked examples to see complete reasoning, then use the shorter pattern library for variation. Level guidance and frameworks show how the same task changes as the evidence, audience, or assignment becomes more demanding.

Guide Examples 8 Templates

Before you copy

What to notice in the examples

A strong recommendation report makes the choice defensible: the reader can see the decision criteria, evidence for each option, tradeoffs, assumptions, risks, implementation implications, and why the recommended option fits better than the alternatives—including no action when that is a realistic choice.

Define the decision, audience, constraints, and criteria before comparing options.
Compare options against the same criteria rather than writing unrelated descriptions of each one.
Separate factual evidence, forecasts, assumptions, and judgment so the reader can challenge them independently.
Include serious disadvantages, implementation costs, and conditions that could change the recommendation.
State the recommendation clearly and connect next steps to the authority and resources required.

Worked format lab

See complete reasoning, not just isolated lines

Use these fuller examples to see what changes between a recognizable pattern and a finished piece of writing. The examples are original or explicitly illustrative, so they demonstrate structure without inventing real-world evidence.

Worked example 1Tool selection recommendation

Illustrative internal decision: choose a customer-feedback tool for a 20-person product team.

Decision\nSelect between Tool A, Tool B, and retaining the current spreadsheet process for the next 12 months.\n\nCriteria\nRequired survey logic, data export, access control, implementation effort, recurring cost, and support were weighted equally because no approved weighting exists.\n\nComparison\nTool A meets all required survey and export functions, requires an estimated two-week setup, and has the highest recurring cost. Tool B costs less but lacks one required export function and would require a manual workaround. The current process has no new license cost but creates repeated reconciliation work and weak access control.\n\nRecommendation\nChoose Tool A for a three-month controlled rollout, subject to security review and contract approval. The recommendation is driven by required capability and access control, not feature count. If the security review adds material restrictions or implementation effort exceeds four weeks, reopen the comparison rather than defaulting to the recommendation.

Why it works: The decision uses the same criteria across options and states a condition that would change the recommendation.

Worked example 2Process recommendation

Illustrative decision: how to reduce approval delays.

Problem\nRequests wait a median of 3.2 business days before first review. A sample of delayed requests shows that missing ownership and incomplete evidence are more common than reviewer capacity shortages.\n\nOptions\nA: add another reviewer. B: require owner and evidence fields before submission. C: keep the process unchanged.\n\nAssessment\nOption A increases capacity but does not address the most common delay condition. Option B adds approximately two minutes to submission but directly addresses the observed handoff gap. Option C has no implementation cost but leaves the current delay pattern unchanged.\n\nRecommendation\nPilot Option B for four weeks. Track rejected submissions, first-review delay, and requester effort. Do not add reviewer capacity unless the pilot shows that complete requests still queue because reviewer load is the limiting factor.

Why it works: The recommendation follows the observed constraint and preserves a test for the competing capacity explanation.

Prompt → finished structure

See the decisions between the assignment and the final form

These transformations make the hidden planning step visible so the template does not become a fill-in-the-blanks substitute for judgment.

Transformation 1Preferred vendor pitch → recommendation report

Starting material: Source describes Vendor A in detail and lists only price for Vendors B and C.

Decisions
Define decision criteria first, collect comparable evidence for all options, include no action when realistic, expose assumptions and tradeoffs, then rank options from the common comparison rather than from narrative emphasis.

Result: Finished structure: decision → criteria → comparable options → tradeoffs/sensitivity → recommendation → implementation condition.

Transformation 2Feature matrix → defensible recommendation

Starting material: Source spreadsheet has 40 features with checkmarks but no distinction between required and optional capability.

Decisions
Separate must-have from nice-to-have criteria, add cost, implementation, risk, and support, verify ambiguous checkmarks, test whether the ranking changes under plausible priorities, and explain the decisive criteria.

Result: Finished structure: requirements + evidence + weighted/qualitative tradeoff + conditional recommendation.

Depth by level

Increase the reasoning, not just the word count

Level	What changes	Quality test
Short recommendation	State the decision, compare a small number of options against explicit criteria, and recommend one with a material tradeoff.	The recommendation should remain understandable even without a scoring model.
Formal recommendation report	Use comparable evidence, assumptions, costs, risks, implementation implications, and sensitivity to explain why one option ranks higher.	The reader should be able to challenge the criteria or assumption without losing the evidence trail.
High-stakes decision	Add independent evidence, scenario/sensitivity analysis, governance constraints, expert input where needed, and conditions that would reverse the recommendation.	The strength of the recommendation must match the quality and reversibility of the evidence.

Reusable frameworks

Start from the decisions the format requires

Framework 1

Observation → function
1. What can the viewpoint actually perceive?
2. Which 1–2 details matter now?
3. What do those details change in image, pace, relationship, or action?
4. What interpretation remains uncertain?

Framework 2

Generic → specific revision
Generic line: [x]
Observable evidence: [x]
Context/constraint: [x]
Unnecessary inference removed: [x]
Revised line: [x]

Software selection report: compare three tools on required capability, integration effort, recurring cost, support, and migration risk, then recommend the best fit for the defined use case rather than the tool with the longest feature list.

Workspace recommendation: compare renewing the current lease, moving, and hybrid downsizing against cost, capacity, commute, flexibility, and operational disruption.

Vendor recommendation: use the same delivery, quality, security-review, service, and total-cost criteria for every vendor and disclose when evidence is incomplete.

Policy recommendation: compare maintain, revise, and replace options against the policy objective, implementation burden, stakeholder effect, and enforceability.

Equipment recommendation: separate purchase price from lifecycle cost, maintenance, training, downtime, and compatibility before selecting an option.

Hiring-process recommendation: compare process changes against time-to-decision, candidate burden, interview signal, consistency, and staffing capacity.

No-change recommendation: explain why the current process remains preferable under present evidence and identify the trigger that would justify reopening the decision.

Conditional recommendation: recommend Option B only if the pilot meets an agreed reliability threshold; otherwise retain Option A until the dependency is resolved.

Turn an example into your own writing

Keep the underlying decision or pattern, then replace the subject, evidence, relationship, constraints, and tone with details that belong to your situation. If your final line still works after swapping only one noun, it may be too close to the example.

What to notice in the examples

See complete reasoning, not just isolated lines

See the decisions between the assignment and the final form

Increase the reasoning, not just the word count

Start from the decisions the format requires

Related writing guides