{
  "schema": "vedokrok.public-item.v1",
  "release_id": "MHC-RPUB-20260920-75ad787a",
  "url": "/knowledge/compare-expected-and-actual-before-explaining-the-gap",
  "id": "MHC-D-RESEARCH-0726",
  "version": "0.1.0",
  "title": "Compare expected and actual before explaining the gap",
  "summary": "Start the review with two columns, not a culprit.",
  "kind": "protocol",
  "body": "Write what was expected to happen and what actually happened using observable outcomes, dates, thresholds or artifacts. Mark the first meaningful divergence. Only then discuss explanations. This separates reconstruction from hindsight and gives the review a shared object to inspect.",
  "limits": [
    "A timeline can still be incomplete. Missing logs or observations should be marked as unknown, not filled with a plausible story."
  ],
  "topics": [
    "union-learning-from-decisions-and-errors"
  ],
  "intents": [],
  "source_ids": [
    "RS-6A2E6BA2CE371BB3",
    "RS-6A2B05A2CE34388A"
  ],
  "evidence": [
    {
      "claim": "Structured debriefs or after-action reviews have been studied as a way to support learning from experience, with meta-analytic evidence of improved performance on average across varied settings.",
      "source_id": "RS-6A2E6BA2CE371BB3",
      "role": "supports",
      "note": "Average effects across studies do not predict the benefit of a particular review; facilitation, task and implementation matter.",
      "locator": "Abstract: objective, method, results and application"
    },
    {
      "claim": "After-action review effectiveness varies with design features; alignment to the person or team and objective review media were among the recurring contributors in a later meta-analysis.",
      "source_id": "RS-6A2B05A2CE34388A",
      "role": "supports",
      "note": "The analysis covers training-evaluation outcomes and interacting moderators; it does not establish one best debrief format for every setting.",
      "locator": "PubMed abstract"
    }
  ],
  "use_when": [
    "A project, decision, incident or experiment has ended and the group is already telling a story about why it went well or badly."
  ],
  "avoid_when": [
    "A timeline can still be incomplete. Missing logs or observations should be marked as unknown, not filled with a plausible story."
  ],
  "example": "Expected 98% of records to validate before import. Actual 81% validated; the first divergence appeared after mapping rule 4 changed.",
  "check": "Another person can point to the same first divergence without needing your interpretation of motive.",
  "steps": [
    "Another person can point to the same first divergence without needing your interpretation of motive."
  ],
  "sources": [
    {
      "id": "RS-6A2E6BA2CE371BB3",
      "title": "Do Team and Individual Debriefs Enhance Performance? A Meta-Analysis",
      "url": "https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0018720812448394"
    },
    {
      "id": "RS-6A2B05A2CE34388A",
      "title": "A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of the after-action review (or debrief) and factors that influence its effectiveness",
      "url": "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32852990/"
    }
  ],
  "relations": [
    {
      "from": "MHC-D-RESEARCH-0726",
      "to": "MHC-D-RESEARCH-0727",
      "type": "use_before",
      "url": "/knowledge/bring-objective-traces-into-the-debrief"
    }
  ],
  "collections": [
    {
      "id": "RC-D475A7021FD981F0",
      "title": "Turn mistakes and outcomes into changes you can verify",
      "url": "/collections/turn-mistakes-and-outcomes-into-changes-you-can-verify"
    }
  ]
}