What it corrects
When people find a plausible explanation, they naturally collect supporting facts. Analysis of Competing Hypotheses reverses that habit. It lists several explanations and asks which ones the evidence contradicts.
The best surviving explanation is not the one with the longest list of supporting facts. It is the one that is hardest to disprove with the available evidence.
How it works
- List the preferred, alternative, and wildcard explanations.
- List the important evidence and assumptions separately.
- Test each evidence point across every hypothesis.
- Eliminate explanations with the strongest contradictions.
- Name the next diagnostic fact that would separate the survivors.
In a Business Case Weekly case
In the Spotify case, a margin problem can have several explanations: supplier power, product mix, acquisition economics, or strategic investment. Evidence that fits all of them is not diagnostic; the useful fact is the one that makes one explanation less credible.
In your answer
- “The same fact could mean either … or …”
- “Evidence against the first explanation is …”
- “The next fact I need is … because it distinguishes them.”
Common misuse
Do not turn the matrix into fake arithmetic. Evidence quality and diagnostic value still require judgment. The structure makes disagreement visible; it does not automate the conclusion.