Skip to brief
Commerce Second OpinionDecision first. Delivery second.
Buyer template / portable decision input

A Buyer Brief for a Magento Second Opinion

Give every adviser the same decision, evidence, constraints, and required outputs before asking for a recommendation. A consistent brief makes different opinions comparable and exposes assumptions before they become implementation change requests.

Published August 28, 2026 · Last updated

1. State the decision in one sentence

Write the decision, its deadline, and the decision owner. Avoid “review our store” as the entire brief. A useful opening is: “The board must decide by 30 October whether to keep Adobe Commerce, modernize its frontend, or replatform before the next license and agency commitment.”

Decision: [What must be approved or rejected?]
Deadline: [When is the decision needed?]
Owner: [Who signs the decision record?]
Implementation status: [Not funded, funded, contracted, or already underway?]

2. Define the business constraints

List conditions that the adviser cannot quietly design away. Include business model, customer types, countries, languages, catalogs, contract pricing, buying workflows, peak trading, accessibility, privacy, regulatory duties, internal skills, and the maximum acceptable disruption.

3. Give the adviser a controlled evidence pack

Start read-only. Provide current contracts, proposals, requirements, architecture diagrams, system inventory, extension list, release history, incidents, support tickets, performance baselines, analytics, hosting and cloud details, license costs, and roadmap. Remove secrets and personal data unless the approved scope needs them.

Record what is missing. An adviser should label an assumption instead of silently treating missing evidence as fact.

4. Name the options that must be tested

Do not let one provider compare its favorite option with an intentionally weak alternative. Use the same requirement set for staying on the current platform, modernizing it, changing the frontend, moving to SaaS, choosing a composable architecture, or replacing only a specific capability. The platform decision matrix supplies a common structure.

5. Require a buyer-owned output

Minimum second-opinion deliverables
OutputWhat it must answer
Current-state findingsWhat is known, inferred, missing, unsafe, or blocking a decision?
Requirements baselineWhich business and technical constraints were used for every option?
Option recordWhy did each path win or lose, and what fact would reverse that result?
Architecture and data flowsWhich system owns product, price, stock, order, customer, payment, and content?
Total-cost assumptionsWhat period, licenses, people, services, rework, risk, and migration cost are included?
Decision and roadmapWhat is recommended, what happens first, and what acceptance gate controls the next spend?

6. Ask for the conflict declaration

Require the adviser to name platform partnerships, referral fees, reseller arrangements, implementation services, subcontractors, and any financial benefit if its recommendation becomes a build. Ask whether it will give the same output if another supplier implements it.

7. Set the acceptance gate

Accept the opinion only when assumptions are visible, rejected options are explained, diagrams and estimates can be reviewed, conflicts are disclosed, and another qualified supplier could use the output without restarting discovery. If the report only says “choose Magento because it is flexible,” the engagement has not produced a decision record.

Copyable request

We need an evidence-based second opinion on [decision]. Compare [options] against the attached requirements and constraints. Deliver current-state findings, assumptions, option criteria, architecture and data ownership, a defined-period TCO model, risks, rejected options, the recommendation, conditions that would change it, and a sequenced roadmap. Declare platform, referral, and implementation conflicts. The buyer must own every output and may ask another supplier to implement it.

Use the brief with the ranking

Return to the seven-adviser comparison, check the OPINION-7 method, and use the due-diligence checklist before granting access. The editorial policy explains how provider claims are bounded.