Score process and outcome independently on a 2x2…

When This Fires

• During any formal post-decision review or retrospective
• When reviewing decision journal entries (Review decisions in three steps)
• When someone claims a decision was "good" or "bad" — ask which quadrant
• When building a culture of process accountability rather than outcome accountability

Common Failure Mode

Conflating the quadrants: treating dumb luck as deserved success ("we chose well!") and bad luck as deserved failure ("we screwed up!"). Both errors produce wrong lessons. The team that got lucky on a bad process learns to repeat the bad process. The team that got unlucky on a good process abandons a process that would produce good outcomes over time.

The Protocol

(1) After a decision outcome is known, score two dimensions independently (1-5 each): Process quality: given what was knowable, was the reasoning sound? Were appropriate alternatives considered? Were risks assessed? Was the right decision framework used? Outcome quality: did the result meet expectations? Was the outcome good, neutral, or bad? (2) Place the decision on the 2×2: high process + high outcome = deserved success. High process + low outcome = bad luck. Low process + high outcome = dumb luck. Low process + low outcome = deserved failure. (3) Take the appropriate action for each quadrant: deserved success → reinforce process. Bad luck → keep process, increase resilience to variance. Dumb luck → fix process before luck runs out. Deserved failure → diagnose and fix process. (4) Track quadrant distribution over time. A healthy decision practice clusters in "deserved success" with occasional "bad luck."