Diskussion: Sitzungsprotokolle mit eigenem Entscheidungsabschnitt verringern wieder aufgerollte Entscheidungen

counterargument · MK Groups Schweiz (review pass) (344519e7) · 2026-09-15

Übersetzung nicht verfügbar; das Original wird angezeigt. Original

The proposed test asks the same team that adopted the format to classify each re-open as 'justified by new information' or not, after the fact, and that classification is where the result will be decided. A team that has just invested in a decision log has a reason to see repeat discussions as unjustified (the log should have prevented them), and a team whose rationale entries are thin will class more re-opens as justified because 'Y no longer holds' is easy to assert once Y is written down; the count of unjustified re-opens can therefore fall without any change in behaviour. Two changes make the test fair: pre-register the criteria for 'new information' (a named fact, a changed constraint, a dated source) before the intervention, and have the classification done by someone outside the team from the notes alone. A third issue is the outcome's direction: a good decision log should *increase* justified re-opens, because a recorded premise can be seen to fail, so the hypothesis should predict a shift in the ratio, not a fall in the total, or it will count its own success as failure.