Colay / Guides
Get a second opinion when you are the only person making the decision
When you run a product alone, it is easy to spend a week refining the option you already prefer. Several AI perspectives can help you surface an overlooked assumption and design a smaller next step. In Colay, use separate answers before synthesis, then turn the discussion into a decision journal you can revisit when real evidence arrives.
Ask about a choice you can change
Choose a concrete business question: build an onboarding shortcut, revise a service package or postpone a feature until customers confirm demand. State the alternatives, the deadline and what you are willing to commit. Include doing nothing for now as a real option when it is feasible.
Write your current preference before asking the models, but leave it out of their first brief when it is not needed. Record why you favor it in your private journal. Later you can see whether the discussion changed your reasoning or merely supplied better language for a decision you had already made.
Give each perspective a job
These are requested reasoning lenses, not certified advisers or statistically independent sources. Select available agents and use Ask separately with the same facts. Keep the original outputs before inviting Consensus to synthesize. If you want eight variants, ask for eight specified lenses, but do not treat their number as a measure of reliability.
Ask for evidence behind both encouragement and objections. A fabricated risk is no more useful than a fabricated opportunity. Agreement between models should lead you back to the supporting facts, not directly to a larger commitment.
- Customer lens: what evidence says the problem is worth solving?
- Delivery lens: which dependency could prevent the proposed result?
- Opportunity-cost lens: what work would this choice displace?
- Skeptical lens: what observation would make the recommendation wrong?
Example: build an integration or test the demand first?
Fictional scenario: a solo founder has two customer requests for an integration and estimates that a prototype would occupy a week. The requests do not say whether the customers would use it regularly. There is also an unresolved onboarding problem. These are illustrative inputs, not a customer case study or a measured development estimate.
The discussion might reveal a smaller next step: show a mock workflow to the requesting customers and ask how they would use it before scheduling implementation. Another reasonable conclusion may be to build if existing evidence already establishes the need. The value is the condition that distinguishes those choices, not a confident vote for one.
| Field | Example entry |
|---|---|
| Decision now | Whether to schedule an integration prototype |
| Known evidence | Two requests; no confirmed usage pattern |
| Assumption | The integration matters more than the onboarding issue |
| Next check | Walk through the proposed workflow with requesting customers |
| Stop or revisit | Customers cannot name a recurring use, or new evidence changes priority |
A prompt for a useful second opinion
After reading the answers, supply the relevant excerpts and original brief to Consensus. Ask it to preserve the strongest unresolved objection and separate the decision you can make today from the decision that requires more information. You remain the owner of the action and the journal.
Decision: [choice and deadline]. Options: [options, including defer if feasible]. Established facts: [facts and sources]. Assumptions: [assumptions]. Constraints: [time, resources, commitments]. For each option, state its strongest case, strongest objection and the evidence that would change your recommendation. Propose the smallest practical next check. Do not invent customer demand or numerical probabilities. Finish with a decision-journal entry that keeps unknowns visible.
Close the loop with observation
Set a date to revisit the entry after the check. Record what happened, which assumption changed and whether the next action is still justified. This turns the conversation into a record of learning rather than a growing collection of persuasive advice.
Use additional opinions where a missed condition could change the decision. A straightforward rewrite may need only one model. Colay uses credits and limits, so compare the extra discussion with the concrete uncertainty it helps resolve. For decisions needing professional expertise or first-hand customer evidence, seek that evidence directly; additional generated opinions do not supply it.
Questions, answered
Will several models reduce the chance of a mistake?
They may expose a useful objection, but there is no guaranteed reduction. Their answers can share errors. Verify the conditions that actually determine your choice.
What if every model supports my preferred option?
Ask what evidence could overturn it and inspect whether the support comes from your brief or an unsupported assumption. Repeated endorsement is not a customer signal.
How do I know the discussion was useful?
Look for a concrete change: a smaller commitment, a missing question, a corrected assumption or a defined test. More text alone is not a decision improvement.
Bring your next question to Colay
Choose a model, use Auto, or bring several perspectives together with Consensus.