Two designs score the same on quality, but one costs five times more per task. What do you recommend, and how?
Why B is the answer
The cheaper design, with the cost and quality evidence written down
When quality is equal, cost decides. Recording the evidence lets the team revisit the choice if things change.
In detail
- When quality is equal, cost decides.
- Writing the evidence down lets the team revisit the choice if things change.
- Note what would make you revisit the decision.
Use case
An illustrative scenario, not a real incident.
Two designs tie on quality, and one costs five times more. The architect recommends the cheaper one and records the numbers, so the choice can be reviewed later.
See it in different ways
sequenceDiagram
participant U as Request
participant F as Fast model
participant V as Validation
participant S as Stronger model
U->>F: Handle first
F->>V: Check the output
alt Fails validation
V->>S: Escalate
else Passes
V-->>U: Return the answer
endflowchart TD
Q{"Do the evals differ?"}
Q -->|"Yes"| A0["Weigh quality against cost"]
Q -->|"No"| A1["Choose the cheaper design"]Key point: When quality is equal, cost decides.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. Neither design, until a future model release makes the choice clearer
- Waiting delays a decision that the evidence already supports.
- C. The costlier design, because customers tend to notice the extra capability
- The scores show no quality gain for that extra cost.
- D. Both designs, running side by side permanently so that nobody has to choose
- Running both forever doubles the work and avoids the decision.