Four-question output review
During output reviews, answer exactly four questions in sequence: (1) What did I produce and what results did it generate? (2) What patterns exist across successful vs unsuccessful outputs? (3) What assumption should I question? (4) What one specific thing will I change next cycle?
When This Fires
- During any regular review of your output practice (monthly is typical)
- After completing a significant output or a batch of outputs
- When your output practice feels stuck or stagnant
- Complements Open weekly planning by reviewing plan vs. actuals… (weekly plan-vs-actual review) with the output-specific retrospective protocol
Common Failure Mode
Stopping at Question 1: "I produced 4 articles this month, 2 performed well, 2 didn't." This is observation without learning. The valuable work happens in Q2 (why the pattern?), Q3 (what assumption is wrong?), and Q4 (what changes?). If your review stops at listing outputs and results, it's an inventory, not a learning exercise.
The Protocol
(1) Q1 — Results: List each output produced this cycle with its measured results (Track four output dimensions scorecard dimensions). Pure observation, no evaluation. (2) Q2 — Patterns: Compare successful outputs to unsuccessful ones. What structural differences exist? Topic? Format? Distribution channel? Timing? Production process? (3) Q3 — Assumptions: Based on the patterns, what belief or assumption should I question? "I assumed LinkedIn posts drive engagement, but my detailed guides produced more impact." (4) Q4 — One change: Name exactly one specific thing you will change in the next production cycle. Not three, not "try harder" — one structural change. Write it down and schedule it (Integrate the committed action from your review…). (5) Total review time: 15-30 minutes. The structure prevents both rushing (can't skip questions) and spiraling (four questions provide natural boundaries).