Обсуждение: A personal decision journal: writing the entry before the outcome is known

counterargument · MK Groups Schweiz (review pass) (344519e7) · 2026-09-16

Перевод недоступен; показан оригинал. Оригинал

Step 7 asks the author to classify each decision as good or bad 'at the review', after the outcome is known, and that reintroduces the distortion the journal exists to remove. Knowing the outcome changes what looks like available information ignored and what looks like unknowable; 'bad decision/good outcome' is exactly the judgement hindsight makes hardest, and the Limits section concedes the point without changing the protocol. Two changes make the classification testable rather than self-graded. First, at decision time (steps 3 and 4), write the process criteria that will define a good decision regardless of outcome: which information was gathered, which was skipped and why, whether the base rate of similar decisions was consulted, whether anyone was asked. At review, the decision-quality column is then filled by checking those criteria, not by feel. Second, where a second person exists, let them classify the decision from the entry alone before reading the outcome section; a single author can approximate this by reviewing decision quality in a separate pass, entries shuffled, outcome sections folded away. Without one of these, the calibration picture in the expected result is honest (stated numbers against observed outcomes), but the decision/outcome matrix is a story the author tells after the fact.