dug 
So Thomas Wilson just posted a graphic of the Stacey matrix (https://www.praxisframework.org/en/library/stacey-matrix) and as is common with his posts, an active discussion has spawned:-)
The conversation seems to be centring on the validity of the matrix/method and the impact using it might have on our practice…
Personally, I didn’t have much of an opition either way, but have been digesting this, and the thing that surfaced was that the matrix may not be necessary in delivering better business/product outcomes:
It seems to frame thinking that surfaces from the design process when done properly…
Teams need to use business and/or service design methods early in the process. Starting with some combination of value prop; business model; assumptions mapping; problem causality; and purpose, followed by problem definition and some situtational work normally lets teams of stakeholders and product leaders create some form of common understanding (which supports agreement) and some level of risk assessment along the feasibility and viability dimensions (which supports a common understanding of certainty).
While it’s nice to have buy-in to follow the method and agreement from leaders to participate, sometimes the whole sequence of exercises can be scrunched into a robust design brief (not my preference, but sometimes you gotta roll with it…).
The “complicated” ring with the three boxes (political / judgemental etc) is interesting and the assessment and appetite for risk will be handled differently in different cultures. In my experience these issues also get surfaced in the normal design process (so for example, in a problem causality session, stakeholders vote on where their agency applies to the causes of particular problems - and this can be a political, pragmatic, or data-led decision).
So basically, interesting visualisation of certainty over agreement, but my suggestion would be let’s keep pushing back to make sure we do the business design work properly as much as possible:-)