Most arguments in a studio are between options that are roughly the same. The right tiebreaker is maintenance, not magic.
You're staring at two design directions. They both work. They both feel right. The team is genuinely split. This is the moment design discussions get philosophical — and then take three more meetings to resolve.
Skip the philosophy. Apply the rule: if two paths feel equal, pick the one with fewer parts.
Fewer components. Fewer states. Fewer tokens. Fewer files. Fewer edge cases the engineer has to handle in week six when the brief shifts. The smaller path doesn't always feel more inspired, but it almost always ages better.
This rule is unfair to flair. It will sometimes kill a clever idea. Live with that. The cost of carrying clever forward through twelve more design reviews and two redesigns is higher than the upside of having shipped clever once.
There's a second-order effect: teams that pick the smaller path consistently end up with smaller systems. Smaller systems are easier to design inside. Easier-to-design systems make better work. The compounding loop runs in the right direction.