I worked at a startup that structured their values to be explicit tradeoffs between two equally valid choices generally, but where one choice was more valid for the startup.

For example, we held something to the effect of "We value open disagreement and direct communication more than harmonious relations" This was a great value: the company needed to have tight OODA loops and that did not permit beating around the bush. People had differences of opinion and they needed to be able to express them and come to conclusions. In other orgs it could have been valid to have a get-along attitude if things were more important to keep steady (a successful and functioning business unit, for example, might prefer to keep going steadily without rocking the boat).

At the same time, the company also said "We value thinking things through from first principles rather than re-applying what has already been done elsewhere." This meant you couldn't justify a decision on "well we did it that way at company x", you had to have a good reason to do something a certain way. This cost us time (unlike the previous value) because decisions or designs could be challenged for not having a good justification. The upside was that it led (I think) to better designs, and encouraged people to debate bad decisions before making them.

We didn't have any values that looked like "honesty" or "excellence". That was nice.