An intermediate step is introduced to the decision dialogue process for decision analysis. Alternatives are refined after they have been generated within a strategy table but before they are subject to more detailed evaluation. Two or more judges create a subjective mapping from alternatives to attributes that will later be mapped to criteria. In strategy tables, each of the alternative strategies consists of a coherent set of choices made across several decisions that are to be coordinated. These strategic alternatives are modified so as to increase their differentiation in the attribute space, rather than in the decision space alone. When criteria weights are unknown, the best alternative from the modified set may be superior to the best alternative from the original set. Furthermore, analysis of the resulting alternatives may yield a better mapping of the value response surface for the action space, in the sense that this mapping leads to eventual construction of a higher value alternative. Results are reported for a consulting engagement incorporating the proposed step.