In the NPPE-style “design process” approach to ethical problem solving, steps are commonly framed as: define the problem (identify stakeholders, facts, constraints), analyze (gather information, identify obligations, risks, applicable laws/codes), synthesize (generate feasible alternatives), and optimize/evaluate (compare alternatives and select the best course based on criteria). Evaluating the benefits and costs of alternative solutions is the comparative decision stage—assessing trade-offs, consequences, and which option best satisfies ethical duties and constraints. That aligns most closely with optimization (or evaluation/selection), rather than problem definition, synthesis (creating options), or analysis (understanding the situation). Therefore, Mac is applying the optimization step by weighing costs and benefits across alternatives to determine the most ethically defensible solution.