Judge performance without letting one recent result or known outcome rewrite the quality of the underlying work.
Open situation →Reasoning Practice · Intermediate
A good result proves a good process
A manager skipped required checks but the project succeeded. The review treats the success as proof that the manager’s approach was excellent.
Your decision
What should be evaluated separately?
Show the best first move
A. The quality of the decision process using what was known before the outcome.
Why this move helps
Good outcomes can follow weak processes. A decision record helps judge whether the risk was understood and managed before luck was known.
Evidence still missing
- Required checks and why they existed.
- Risks known before execution.
- Whether similar choices would perform reliably across repeated cases.
Evidence note
Outcome bias is a relevant lens, but process rules may also need review if they add cost without reducing meaningful risk.
Next action
Rate process quality and outcome quality in separate fields.
Best first lens
Outcome Bias
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 review your reasoning process without confusing confidence, outcome and hindsight with decision quality.
Build this skill →Preserve what was known, expected and uncertain before the outcome changes memory.
Run the technique →