# From Lab to First Order: your next decision

FoodEdge Decision Labs | Working worksheet v1 | 17 October 2026

Use this worksheet for one product, application and target market. It organises the evidence you have and the questions you still need to answer. It does not certify technical readiness, regulatory compliance or investment quality.

## 1. Name the decision

**We need to decide whether to:**

**By this date:**

**The commitment at stake is:**

**The customer and application are:**

**The current alternative is:**

## 2. Map the evidence

Use **documented / partly supported / no evidence yet / unknown**. Reference the actual document, test or interview. A file's existence does not establish that its method answers your question.

| Gate | What must be true for this decision? | Evidence and its limit | Status | Next check |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Application: should it leave the lab? | | | | |
| Scale: can the intended process deliver? | | | | |
| Requirements: what permits this sale? | | | | |
| Adoption: will a buyer accept the product? | | | | |
| Economics: can the accepted product earn money? | | | | |
| Next commitment: does the evidence justify it? | | | | |

## 3. Challenge the preferred answer

**The strongest argument against our preferred option is:**

**The assumption with the largest consequence if wrong is:**

**The evidence that would change our mind is:**

**The work we would postpone to make this commitment is:**

## 4. Choose the next test

| Priority gap | Test or check | Comparator / acceptance condition | Owner and date | Continue / redesign / stop condition |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | | | |
| 2 | | | | |
| 3 | | | | |

**Decision now:** Continue / Redesign / Pause pending evidence / Stop.

**Reason:**

**Review date and trigger:**

## Worked teaching example: a fictional ingredient team

This is an invented exercise. It describes no real company, customer, experiment or regulatory status. All conditions below are teaching assumptions, not suggested technical thresholds.

**Decision:** whether to commit to a larger production campaign for an ingredient intended for a specific bakery application.

**Current position:** the team reports a laboratory result and has modelled production cost. It has not yet agreed a buyer's acceptance criteria, confirmed sale requirements for the intended market or shown that its recovery assumptions hold for an accepted final ingredient.

**Preferred option:** increase scale immediately. **Alternative:** perform a smaller application and process check first. **Strongest objection:** larger output would not resolve whether the recovered ingredient works for the buyer or can be supplied under the applicable requirements.

| Priority gap | Next check | What would change the decision? |
|---|---|---|
| Buyer acceptance | Agree the intended use and acceptance criteria with a relevant buyer; design a suitable comparison | An agreed test shows that the ingredient meets the conditions needed for that application |
| Recovery and economics | Trace the cost model to accepted product, including losses and utilisation; examine sensitivity | The model remains workable under justified assumptions, rather than only its preferred case |
| Requirements | Have a competent specialist scope the intended product, use and market | A documented pathway and unresolved requirements are understood before the relevant commitment |

**Decision now:** pause the larger commitment pending the three checks. This is not a claim that the business is unviable. It identifies what the current evidence cannot yet justify.

**Owner:** the team names a responsible person for each check during the workshop. **Review:** the team sets a date and the precise evidence needed; the worksheet does not invent them on its behalf.