Opponents of a proposal ask, in the decision forum, for the specific evidence behind its central claims, such as the customer data or the cost model, and hold their approval until it is shown.
Borderline: whether this move is justified depends on the situation, and only the person in it can judge.
An example
Hospital contracts, the president of a private-equity-backed commercial cleaning company told the board's operating committee, would earn forty percent margins by the second year of a push into healthcare facilities. The chief financial officer doubted it. In the meeting she asked for two things: the cost model behind the forty percent, line by line, and the bid history from the three hospital pilots the plan cited. She said she would support the plan if the numbers held, and asked that the vote wait two weeks. The committee agreed. The cost model assumed office-cleaning labor rates, and hospital work needed certified staff paid about a fifth more. The bid history showed one win in three tries. The president came back with a revised plan at twenty-six percent margins and a slower ramp, and the committee approved that version.
Why it works
Asking for the evidence makes the proposal as presented look worse until its claims are shown to hold, because the deciders see that a central number rests on something none of them has examined. The request leaves the idea itself alone, so it is hard to dismiss as obstruction. It works when the request is specific, tied to a claim the decision depends on, made in the forum that decides, and paired with a plain statement of what would earn approval. It depends on a forum that respects evidence.
The thinking behind it
Roger Fisher Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (1981), by Roger Fisher and William Ury, advises insisting on objective criteria: negotiating on some basis independent of either side's will, yielding to principle and never to pressure. Asking for the cost model and the bid history moves the decision onto that basis. It also explains the clean form, since a request aimed at criteria that would settle the question differs from one aimed at delay.
Daniel Kahneman Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow (2011) describes two modes of thought: a fast, automatic one that produces intuitive answers and a slow, deliberate one that engages only when something demands effort, so people pressed for time tend to accept the intuitive answer. A confident margin figure in a polished plan invites the fast answer. Asking for the cost model and a short pause makes the committee do the slow work on the one number the decision rests on.
When it fits
Apply it when a proposal rests on one or two claims you doubt and the decision is large enough to justify a pause. You need a seat in the deciding forum, the competence to read the evidence, and enough standing that the request is taken as diligence. It fits badly when the decision is small, urgent, or already backed by solid data.
How to use it well
Find the claims the proposal cannot stand without, usually a forecast, a cost assumption, or a customer finding, and ask for the evidence behind those, by name.
- Ask in the deciding forum, so the request is on the record and the sponsor can answer it there.
- Say what would satisfy you and how long you need to read it.
- Keep the request in proportion to the decision: a few items for a large bet, one for a small one.
- Read what comes back, and say promptly whether it settles your doubt.
If it does, support the proposal openly. That is what makes your next request credible.
What it costs and where it backfires
The sponsor may take the request as hostile, and the delay has a real cost if the opportunity is time-sensitive. Each request spends credibility: if your doubts prove baseless, the next one will be read as obstruction. What keeps it legitimate is proportion and good faith. Once the requests keep coming after each is answered, aim at items that would not change your view, or are timed to run out the clock, the move has become a stall, and the forum will start treating you as a blocker.
When it is used on you
Give the evidence fast and in full when an opponent asks for it, and ask them to say in the meeting what would satisfy them. If new requests keep arriving after each answer, put the full list and your answers in front of the forum and ask the chair for a decision date.