{
  "schema": "vedokrok.public-item.v1",
  "release_id": "MHC-RPUB-20261011-9e4b62c5",
  "url": "/knowledge/outcome-bias",
  "id": "MHC-D-35F4553B8727",
  "version": "0.1.0",
  "kind": "concept",
  "title": "Outcome bias",
  "summary": "A lucky result can make a poor decision look much smarter than it was.",
  "body": "Outcome bias is judging an earlier decision mainly by how it turned out rather than by the information, reasoning, and risks available when it was made. Good decisions can lose; bad decisions can get lucky.\n\nReconstruct what was known before the outcome. Judge the process and risk using that information, not hindsight. Use the outcome to update future decisions without rewriting the quality of the original process.",
  "use_when": [
    "You need to examine how an outcome affects your evaluation of an earlier decision."
  ],
  "limits": [
    "Outcomes matter. They can reveal flaws or strengths that were genuinely uncertain; the mistake is treating the result as the whole evaluation."
  ],
  "example": "A team skips validation, launches a risky change, and happens to succeed. The positive result is useful data, but it does not retroactively make the skipped checks a sound decision process.",
  "check": "Would you judge the same process differently if luck had produced the opposite outcome?",
  "topics": [],
  "intents": [],
  "published_at": "2026-10-11T19:10:00Z",
  "review": {
    "kind": "agent",
    "label": "Agent editorial and scoped evidence review",
    "reviewed_at": "2026-10-11T19:01:14Z"
  },
  "source_ids": [
    "FP-CB-OUTCOME"
  ],
  "evidence": [
    {
      "claim": "In the reported studies, evaluations of a decision-maker’s thinking changed with favourable versus unfavourable outcomes despite access to the same decision information.",
      "source_id": "FP-CB-OUTCOME",
      "role": "supports",
      "locator": "Abstract",
      "note": "Five described decision-evaluation studies; does not establish a workplace debiasing intervention. Practical questions below are editorial suggestions, not experimentally validated remedies. Access: abstract_only; 2026-10-11. Five described decision-evaluation studies; does not establish a workplace debiasing intervention."
    }
  ],
  "editorial_overlay": null,
  "editorial": null,
  "notices": [],
  "sources": [
    {
      "id": "FP-CB-OUTCOME",
      "title": "Outcome bias in decision evaluation",
      "url": "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3367280/"
    }
  ],
  "relations": [],
  "collections": [
    {
      "id": "RC-FIRST-PARTY-JUDGMENT-CHECKS",
      "title": "Question the shortcut behind a judgment",
      "url": "/collections/question-the-shortcut-behind-a-judgment"
    }
  ],
  "topic_hubs": [],
  "solution_packs": []
}