Construct deterministic project pareto frontier

What it's for

Shows CEOs, investors, and product owners the value-cost-risk tradeoff surface instead of compressing incompatible goals into one opaque priority score.

What you give it

Inputs split into evidence read from your connected systems, calibration your team owns, and numerical controls that affect precision but never the result's meaning.

{
  "alternatives": [
    {
      "id": "accelerate-core",
      "metrics": {
        "cash": 500,
        "npv": 900,
        "risk": 0.35
      }
    },
    {
      "id": "platform-first",
      "metrics": {
        "cash": 300,
        "npv": 700,
        "risk": 0.15
      }
    },
    {
      "id": "legacy-expansion",
      "metrics": {
        "cash": 550,
        "npv": 500,
        "risk": 0.4
      }
    }
  ],
  "criteria": [
    {
      "direction": "maximize",
      "id": "npv",
      "practical_epsilon": 20
    },
    {
      "direction": "minimize",
      "id": "cash",
      "practical_epsilon": 10
    },
    {
      "direction": "minimize",
      "id": "risk",
      "practical_epsilon": 0.01
    }
  ]

What you get back

This is the actual output of running the example above — computed by the same function the platform calls, not an illustration.

{
  "alternative_diagnostics": [
    {
      "alternative_id": "platform-first",
      "dominated_by": [],
      "dominated_by_count": 0,
      "dominates_count": 1,
      "is_frontier": true,
      "normalized_minimum_achievement": 0.5,
      "pareto_layer": 1
    },
    {
      "alternative_id": "accelerate-core",
      "dominated_by": [],
      "dominated_by_count": 0,
      "dominates_count": 1,
      "is_frontier": true,
      "normalized_minimum_achievement": 0.2,
      "pareto_layer": 1
    },
    {
      "alternative_id": "legacy-expansion",
      "dominated_by": [
        "accelerate-core",
        "platform-first"
      ],
      "dominated_by_count": 2,
      "dominates_count": 0,
      "is_frontier": false,
      "normalized_minimum_achievement": 0,
      "pareto_layer": 2
    }
  ],
  "assumptions": [
    "Criteria, directions, and practical epsilons were fixed before comparison.",
    "All alternatives are feasible and evaluated at a comparable horizon and scope.",
    "The balanced candidate uses no stakeholder weights and is not an automatic winner."
  ],
  "criterion_policy": [
    {
      "criterion_id": "npv",
      "direction": "maximize",
      "observed_range": 400,
      "practical_epsilon": 20

How it works

Statistical audit & measurement — Check whether a number is fit to decide on: coverage, timing, reconciliation, and the gaps a dashboard hides.

1. 1 Freeze comparable alternatives, criterion meanings, directions, units, horizon, feasibility, and practical epsilons before comparison.
2. 2 Apply epsilon dominance across every criterion, peel exact nondominated layers, and expose which alternatives dominate each excluded option.
3. 3 Report all frontier tradeoffs and an explicitly weight-free maximin balanced candidate; elicit preferences before selecting among multiple frontier points.

Before you trust it

Every tool in the catalog ships with the conditions under which its answer is meaningful — and the conditions under which it should abstain instead of guessing.

Calibrating it to your org

Calibration workflow

1. 1 Define the management decision, target outcome, aggregate unit, privacy boundary, cadence, and prediction/intervention horizon for this organization.
2. 2 Build a tenant-scoped historical cohort using only information available before each prediction or decision; preserve zero periods, censoring, assignment probabilities, and unresolved outcomes when the method requires them.
3. 3 Estimate statistical parameters on training history, but obtain costs, utilities, risk tolerance, practical-effect thresholds, capacity, and policy constraints from accountable decision owners.
4. 4 Validate on later time windows or held-out aggregate units at the deployment grain, against a simple baseline and the function-specific validation strategy.
5. 5 Deploy only if the returned decision clears evidence, overlap, calibration, robustness, and guardrail checks; warning, unsupported, schema-gap, and fallback decisions are abstentions.
6. 6 Monitor realized outcomes, data drift, coverage, and decision regret; recalibrate at a governed cadence or after a detected regime/definition change, never merely because a stakeholder dislikes the result.

Call it from your AI

You don't wire up 388 tools in your MCP client. The GitRevio MCP server exposes 18 tools, three of which let an agent search the catalog, read a tool's schema, and run it — so the assistant finds this one on its own.

gitrevio_capabilities_search
  { "q": "construct the exact practically nondominated frontier" }
  → finds "construct_deterministic_project_pareto_frontier"

gitrevio_capability_describe
  { "capability_id": "construct_deterministic_project_pareto_frontier" }
  → returns the input schema and agent guidance shown on this page

gitrevio_capability_run
  { "capability_id": "construct_deterministic_project_pareto_frontier", "arguments": { ... } }
  → returns the result shown above

Works in Claude Desktop, Claude Code, Cursor, Cline, Continue.dev, Goose and Aider. See the MCP server.

Related tools

See every tool in Investment & portfolio choice →