SWOT Analysis Template

The classic template — with the three missing columns

Copy the structure below. The three non-negotiables that most SWOT templates omit: the decision line (a SWOT 'of the company' answers no question — anchor it to one choice), the evidence column (an entry that cites nothing is a hypothesis, and gets labeled as one), and the weight column (force-ranking is where analysis begins). The full method, worked example and failure modes are in the SWOT analysis guide.

SWOT ANALYSIS
Decision: [The ONE choice this analysis serves — e.g. "Enter the enterprise segment next year?"]
Date / owner: [when + who]

STRENGTHS (internal, helpful)          | Evidence                       | Weight 1–5
1.                                     |                                |
2.                                     |                                |
3.                                     |                                |

WEAKNESSES (internal, harmful)         | Evidence                       | Weight 1–5
1.                                     |                                |
2.                                     |                                |
3.                                     |                                |

OPPORTUNITIES (external, helpful)      | Evidence                       | Weight 1–5
1.                                     |                                |
2.                                     |                                |
3.                                     |                                |

THREATS (external, harmful)            | Evidence                       | Weight 1–5
1.                                     |                                |
2.                                     |                                |
3.                                     |                                |

PAIRINGS (where the strategy comes from)
S×O — which strengths capture which opportunities:
W×T — which weaknesses make which threats dangerous:

DECISION + REASONING (the line most SWOTs never write):

How to fill it in

1. 1Write the decision line first. Every entry that follows must be relevant to that one choice — the anchor is the relevance filter.
2. 2Collect entries independently before discussing. Solo drafts first, then pool — prevents the first loud entry from anchoring the set.
3. 3Fill the evidence column or flag the gap. "Strong brand" becomes "brand drives 40% of inbound pipeline (CRM)" — or gets tagged as a hypothesis to verify.
4. 4Weight and prune. Keep the three to five entries per quadrant that could change the decision; the discipline of dropping the sixth strength is the analysis starting.
5. 5Do the pairings, then write the decision line at the bottom. The grid was scaffolding; the recommendation with its reasoning is the product.

The argument-tree variant

For a consequential decision — or any team that isn't in one room — restructure the same content as an argument tree in Argumentree. The mapping:

Three things the tree variant does that the grid cannot: cross-quadrant tension becomes structure — the threat that neutralizes a strength attaches to it as a counterargument instead of coincidentally sharing a page; the analysis stays alive — when facts change, the relevant node takes new evidence rather than the whole SWOT being redone from a stale photo; and AI extraction builds the starting tree — paste your notes, documents or the classic template above, and review a proposed tree instead of transcribing one. The reasoning logic behind the mapping is in the SWOT guide's argument-tree section; the quality frame is decision quality.