Make Better Decisions Under Pressure

Proof required

Submit your decision audit: a structured document containing at least 5 real past decisions, each with four labelled fields (decision made / belief at the time / actual outcome / root cause: process | luck | information). At least 2 must be classified as process failures with a specific explanation of what process was missing. Append your 150-word signature analysis naming one recurring pattern.

What gets checked

• 5 real decisions with all four fields completed — generic descriptions such as 'made a bad hire' without the specific reasoning at the time do not count
• At least 2 root-cause attributions of 'process failure' with a named specific gap (e.g. 'skipped reference checks', 'no pre-mortem run')
• Signature analysis names one pattern with evidence from at least 2 of the 5 entries — a general observation not tied to the entries is insufficient

Common mistakes

• Attributing every bad outcome to bad luck or external factors to avoid examining one's own process
• Selecting low-stakes decisions where errors carry no real cost — the audit should cover decisions with material consequences
• Writing the document retrospectively from memory without checking any contemporaneous records (emails, notes, calendar)

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask the submitter to describe one of the process-failure entries in detail — what specifically did they skip and why at the time?
• Check that root-cause labels are applied with reasoning, not just assigned to reach the '2 process failures' minimum
• Confirm the signature pattern named in the analysis matches 2+ specific entries rather than being a general observation
• A list of decisions classified only as 'bad luck' with no process failures named is a red flag — almost every decision audit surfaces at least some process issues

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit your 8-week decision journal: at least 12 documented decisions, each with four fields (decision faced / what the framework surfaced / whether inclination changed — yes/no + how / decision made). Entries must be dated and spread across the 8-week period. The same framework must appear across all 12 entries.

What gets checked

• 12 or more documented decisions with all four fields — a summary of the 8 weeks written retrospectively does not qualify
• Framework visibly changes inclination on at least 4 of the 12 entries with a specific explanation of how, not just 'yes it helped'
• Dates on entries are spread across the 8 weeks — entries clustered in the final week indicate retrospective writing

Common mistakes

• Switching frameworks mid-journal when one feels uncomfortable — the proof of value is in repeated application of a single framework until it becomes natural, not finding the 'right' one
• Documenting trivial decisions (what to have for lunch) to reach the minimum count rather than decisions with real stakes or uncertainty
• The 'inclination changed' field answered 'no' across all 12 entries — this suggests the framework was applied as a ritual rather than engaged with honestly

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Confirm the same framework appears across all 12 entries — switching frameworks between entries is a failure mode, not a sign of sophistication
• Look for at least 4 entries where 'inclination changed' is 'yes' with a specific explanation — if all are 'no', the framework was applied without honest engagement
• Check that entry dates span the 8 weeks — entries written in the last 2 days of the period indicate the journal was reconstructed from memory
• Ask the submitter to name a decision that was harder to make because of the framework, not easier — this reveals genuine engagement

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit your 3-case written brief (minimum 800 words total, one section per case) plus the Q&A record from the review session: the reviewer's questions and your responses (minimum 5 distinct questions documented), and the reviewer's written sign-off naming their role, their minimum qualification, and confirming this was a live 20-minute session with adversarial questioning.

What gets checked

• All 3 case types present — one success, one framework-despite-failure, one near-miss — not 3 successes or 3 failures
• Q&A record documents actual questions asked (not paraphrased weeks later) and your actual responses, not a clean narrative
• Reviewer sign-off includes their name, their relevant background (current or recent decision-making role with ≥5 years), and confirmation the session included adversarial challenges to your reasoning

Common mistakes

• Presenting only successful applications — the failure case and the near-miss are the most revealing and must be real
• A reviewer who validates every answer without pushing back — a genuine adversarial reviewer should identify at least one gap in the submitter's reasoning
• Sign-off written after the fact without the Q&A record to support it — the record is the proof of the session, not the sign-off alone

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Confirm all 3 case types are present and that the failure case involves a real mistake made despite the framework — not a hypothetical or a near-miss relabelled
• Ask the submitter about a decision not in their brief: walk me through how you would apply your framework to X (novel scenario). Assess whether reasoning is genuinely internalised or rehearsed
• Ask the submitter to identify the weakest part of their own reasoning in one of the cases — this tests metacognitive awareness, the deepest level of decision improvement
• Reviewer minimum qualification: 5+ years making consequential decisions (senior manager, founder, investor, experienced consultant) — a peer without this track record and experience of real decision consequences does not qualify

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.