Compare staying, moving or reskilling without letting salary anchors, sunk time or today's mood decide the future.
Open situation →Reasoning Practice · Intermediate
Twelve years means another year
A specialist dislikes the current path but says changing direction would waste twelve years of experience. The next year is evaluated mainly through the past investment.
Your decision
Which comparison is most useful?
Show the best first move
A. Compare the future value, cost and options of staying versus changing from today onward.
Why this move helps
Past experience may create transferable value, but it is not itself a reason to invest another year. The decision should compare future consequences.
Evidence still missing
- Transferable skills from the existing path.
- Future learning and income under each option.
- Real switching costs that still occur in the future.
Evidence note
Escalation of commitment is a plausible lens because past time drives the next investment. Past experience can remain relevant through future benefits and switching costs.
Next action
Write a future-only comparison for the next twelve months.
Best first lens
Escalation of Commitment
Use the lens to ask a better question. It does not prove that a person or team has a cognitive bias.
Other defensible lenses
The situation may have more than one explanation.
Continue the path
Situation → skill → technique → action.
You can make a decision without pretending uncertainty has disappeared.
Build this skill →Evaluate the next step using future cost and value rather than resources already spent.
Run the technique →