Support tradeoff decisions

Today the checklists include binary recommendations, for example "configure egress traffic through a NGFW". However, design decisions are often a tradeoff between different aspects of a design, and following a certain recommendation might increase one, but decrease another one. For example, injecting an AzFW increases security, but impacts negatively the cost and complexity of the design. Hence, depending on the main goal of a certain architecture, the right answer to the recommendation might vary: for security-optimized designs the recommendation would be one, but for cost-optimized designs the recommendation would be another.

In order to support this, two things would need to be modified:

- The answers to the recommendations should allow for more variation. Not only "Fulfilled", but something like "Yes, doing this already" and "ACK'ed but thanks, no thanks"
- Recommendations should include a "weight" that give an idea of which design pillars (Security, Cost, Complexity, Resiliency) are the impacting when implemented and when not implemented

Having this in the checklists would allow to do reviews for security-optimized designs, resiliency-optimized designs or cost-optimized designs, for example.