# Brief: Tech Comparison

> Target downstream skill: `tech-comparison-matrix`

## The question
{One sentence — what's being chosen and what for. e.g. "Pick a primary OLTP datastore for the new checkout service."} [explicit|implied|inferred|missing]
> "{verbatim snippet}"

## Candidates
- **{Candidate A}** — {one-line positioning if source has it} [explicit|implied|inferred|missing]
- **{Candidate B}**
- **{Candidate C}**

## Evaluation criteria (with weights if source implies them)
- **{Criterion 1}** ({weight if known}) — {what "good" looks like} [explicit|implied|inferred|missing]
- **{Criterion 2}**
- **{Criterion 3}**
- **{Criterion 4}**
- **{Criterion 5}**

## Constraints / non-negotiables
- {Existing estate, e.g. "must run on AWS"} [explicit|implied|inferred|missing]
- {Team skills, e.g. "team has 5 years of Postgres"}
- {Compliance, e.g. "data must stay in eu-west-1"}

## Workload profile
- **Read/write ratio:** {ratio} [explicit|implied|inferred|missing]
- **Scale targets:** {QPS, data volume, growth} [explicit|implied|inferred|missing]
- **Consistency needs:** {strong / eventual / tunable} [explicit|implied|inferred|missing]

## Tentative leaning (if stated)
{"Source seems to favour X because Y" — flag so matrix can be honest about bias} [explicit|implied|inferred|missing]

---

## 🚩 Missing for downstream
- {e.g. "Only 1 candidate captured — comparison needs ≥2"}
- {e.g. "No evaluation criteria — matrix will default to a generic set"}