Review decisions in three steps
When reviewing decision journal entries, follow the three-step sequence: (1) re-read original reasoning with outcome hidden, (2) predict outcome based only on original reasoning, (3) uncover actual outcome and compare all three—this sequence defeats hindsight bias.
When This Fires
- When reviewing any decision journal entry (Decision journal entries need six fields captured before…) after the outcome window has passed
- During monthly or quarterly decision journal review sessions
- When someone asks "would you make that same decision again?" — use this protocol to answer honestly
- When trying to distinguish good process from good luck
Common Failure Mode
Reading the outcome first: "Let me see how that decision turned out... ah, it went badly. Now let me re-read my reasoning to see where I went wrong." The reasoning review is now contaminated — you'll zero in on the factors that predicted the bad outcome and ignore factors that supported the decision. The actual error in your reasoning may not be the one that matches the outcome.
The Protocol
(1) Open a past decision journal entry. Cover or hide the expected outcome, confidence, and any post-decision notes. (2) Read only the decision, reasoning chain, and state. Re-enter the pre-decision mindset. (3) Based only on the reasoning you just re-read, predict: "Given this reasoning, what outcome would I expect?" Write your prediction. (4) Now reveal the original expected outcome and confidence percentage. Compare your current prediction to your original prediction. (5) Now reveal the actual outcome. Compare all three: original prediction, current prediction, actual outcome. (6) Extract the lesson: was the reasoning sound regardless of outcome? Was the confidence well-calibrated? Did the state (tired, stressed) correlate with worse reasoning? Record the meta-lesson.