Across the three-day hackathon, our initial ideas did not always hold up under further research. New information exposed gaps in our reasoning, forcing us to reconsider parts of our approach. Each change meant weighing what we had learned against the limited time we had left. I began to realise that the hardest part was not simply finding a good idea, but deciding when an idea was strong enough to pursue.
At one point, we struggled to determine whether our proposed solution was distinctive enough. My instinct was to keep researching until we could be confident that we had chosen the right direction. I worried that committing too early might lead us towards a weak solution, but continuing to explore every possibility carried its own risk: we could run out of time before developing our strongest ideas.
I found myself caught between two responsibilities. I wanted to make an informed decision, but I also needed to keep the team moving. More research might uncover useful insights, yet it would not necessarily remove every doubt. I had to consider the evidence we already had, listen to my teammates’ perspectives and judge which direction offered the strongest potential within our constraints.
Making that call was uncomfortable because I could not guarantee the outcome. I had to accept that a decision could be reasonable without being perfect. Once we committed to an approach, we could focus our remaining time on testing our reasoning, addressing gaps and strengthening the solution instead of repeatedly returning to the same question.