An outcome needs context
A fill report explains quantities and prices, but not always the reason for a decision. A journal adds available information, the objective, the applicable rule and your explanation of the action. Keep prior notes separate from retrospective comments.
Use a short, consistent format. Record time, observation, action, rule and reason for each decision. A session without trades also deserves an entry: it can show whether conditions were absent or understanding was incomplete.
Review with a specific question
Begin by checking facts: what quantity was filled, which modelled cost was included and which rule applied? Then identify a difference between plan and action. A statement such as “I am bad at this” does not identify a behaviour you can practise.
Synthetic example: twice you submitted a quantity different from the permitted one. The next task could be ten quantity checks before submission in an order exercise. This addresses the observed mistake; searching for a new strategy would not necessarily fix it.
Preserve what went well too
Mark a correct action and explain the supporting evidence. Keeping a limit during a losing session also deserves a record. Do not change every rule after one attempt or conclude that a method works because one day was profitable.
Choose the next practice and its check. If you repeat a familiar scenario, record that you remember its outcome: it can help rehearse mechanics, but cannot assess a decision as though the situation were new.
- Write a five-line review containing facts and one lesson.
- Choose a specific behaviour for the next practice.
- Move on when you can justify that task with evidence from the attempt.
Check your understanding
ACTIVITY · AT YOUR OWN PACE
Apply the idea before continuing
Write your answer before opening the reasoning. All prices, quantities and outcomes in this activity are hypothetical. Keep your explanation in your own notebook; it is not sent to the server.
The case
Two attempts finish at +10 net units. The first retains its plan and notes written before the outcome. The second contains only the result and an explanation written at the end.
Your task
Compare evidence quality without assigning higher future profitability to the first attempt. Write a verifiable improvement for the second.
Compare my answer with the reasoning
The outcome is identical, but the first record lets you compare intention and available information with the action. The second cannot reliably reconstruct them. One improvement is to write the reason before advancing and keep a time reference, rather than fabricate an earlier note afterwards.
Evidence you should be able to explain
A fact, an interpretation with limits and a concrete check for the next session.
If you cannot justify it, revisit the example and state what is missing. A memorised answer or simulated profit does not replace this explanation.
Use the review journal →Sources and references
Chezur examples and explanations are educational. Consult the original source to verify conditions, data and updates.
Context and review of this explanation
What should I record to review a decision rather than only its outcome?
- Topics
- Journal and review · Method and statistics
- Level
- Beginner
- Skills
- Review a decision · Preserve an interpretable record
- Examples
- Hypothetical situations illustrating the concept.
- Specialist review
- Not documented for this edition. Automated structure and internal-link checks do not establish specialist review.