Use Opportunity Cost Prover with your AI.

Validate opportunity cost

You must: (1) CHOSEN PATH. describe what you are choosing and why. Not "Option A is best". what specifically makes it better than the alternative?, (2) DISCARDED ALTERNATIVE. name the second-best option. "Doing nothing" is not an alternative. What is the real, concrete path you are rejecting?, (3) DIRECT COST. measure the FULL cost of the chosen path. Not just the price. time, attention, hidden costs, maintenance, learning curves, (4) OPPORTUNITY COST. quantify the VALUE of the rejected alternative. What would you have gained by choosing the other path? If you cannot quantify it, you have not analyzed it, (5) IRREVERSIBILITY. is this a one-way or two-way door? What is the cost of reversing? Some doors lock behind you. These deserve 10x the analysis, (6) MATH VERIFICATION. prove that Gains > (Direct Costs + Opportunity Cost). Not "it will pay for itself". show the actual numbers. If the math does not hold, the decision fails regardless of intuition. If rejected, your decision has an unexamined cost. Fix it before committing. Structured reflection capability that forces rigorous opportunity cost analysis before any major decision. the economics of what you GIVE UP, not just what you gain. Applicable to ANY domain: choosing a career, designing a building, allocating a budget, selecting a technology, or planning a farm rotation. The domain does not matter. every decision has a cost that goes beyond the price tag. Catches Tunnel Vision (evaluating only the chosen option without measuring alternatives. a family buys a house for $400,000 and celebrates the "great deal." They never calculated: the same $400,000 invested at 7% annual return = $1.57M in 20 years. The house appreciated to $680,000 in 20 years (3% annual). Opportunity cost: $1.57M − $680,000 = $890,000 in lost wealth. The house was not "cheap". it cost $890,000 in foregone investment returns. This is not an argument against buying houses. it is an argument FOR measuring what you sacrifice by choosing one path over another), Direct Cost Blindness (counting only the visible price and ignoring hidden costs. a restaurant owner hires a sous chef for $55,000/year. Direct cost: $55,000. Hidden costs: training (3 months of reduced productivity = $12,000), management time (5 hours/week × $60/hour × 52 weeks = $15,600), mistakes during learning curve (estimated $4,000 in food waste), and the opportunity cost of the owner's attention diverted from marketing ($20,000 in estimated lost revenue). True cost of the hire: $106,600. nearly double the salary. "It only costs $55K" is never the full picture), Opportunity Cost Ignored (choosing without quantifying the value of the rejected alternative. a farmer plants corn on 100 acres because "corn prices are up." Corn revenue: $850/acre × 100 = $85,000. But the same 100 acres could grow soybeans at $550/acre = $55,000, or could be leased to a solar farm at $1,200/acre = $120,000. By choosing corn over solar leasing, the farmer LOST $35,000. The corn was profitable. but it was the worst of three options. Opportunity cost is not about whether you make money. it is about whether you made the MOST money given your alternatives), Irreversibility Dismissed (treating one-way doors as two-way without acknowledging the lock. a student chooses medical school over law school. The choice is not "I prefer medicine." The choice is: 4 years of medical school + 3-7 years of residency + $250,000 in debt. At year 6, switching to law means: 6 years of medicine are sunk, plus 3 more years of law school + $150,000 more debt. The total switching cost: $400,000 + 9 years. Some decisions are one-way doors. the cost of reversing exceeds the cost of the original choice. These decisions deserve 10x more analysis than two-way doors), and Math Fabrication (claiming gains exceed costs without rigorous calculation. "this will pay for itself in 6 months" is the most common unproven claim in any decision. A gym owner buys a $30,000 machine. Claims: "It will attract 50 new members × $50/month = $2,500/month. Payback: 12 months." Reality: 12 new members joined (not 50). 8 were existing members switching from free weights (cannibalization, not new revenue). Net new revenue: 4 members × $50 = $200/month. Actual payback: 12.5 YEARS. Meanwhile, the $30,000 could have funded a marketing campaign that historically generates 20 new members/month. Gains > Costs must be PROVEN, not hoped). Call once per major decision. career, investment, resource allocation, strategic choice. any domain