{
  "schema": "vedokrok.public-item.v1",
  "release_id": "MHC-RPUB-20260920-75ad787a",
  "url": "/knowledge/bring-objective-traces-into-the-debrief",
  "id": "MHC-D-RESEARCH-0727",
  "version": "0.1.0",
  "title": "Bring objective traces into the debrief",
  "summary": "Memory is useful input; it should not be the only log.",
  "kind": "checklist",
  "body": "Before the discussion, collect the smallest set of objective traces that can challenge recollection: timestamps, versions, test results, messages, metrics, screenshots, transaction IDs or recordings. Put them beside the narrative rather than using them as decoration after the conclusion.",
  "limits": [
    "Logs can be incomplete or misleading. Treat them as evidence with provenance, not automatic truth."
  ],
  "topics": [
    "union-learning-from-decisions-and-errors"
  ],
  "intents": [],
  "source_ids": [
    "RS-6A2B05A2CE34388A"
  ],
  "evidence": [
    {
      "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 review depends mainly on memory, impressions or the loudest participant's account."
  ],
  "avoid_when": [
    "Logs can be incomplete or misleading. Treat them as evidence with provenance, not automatic truth."
  ],
  "example": "Instead of debating when a configuration changed, compare transport timestamps, activation logs and the first failing test.",
  "check": "The review contains at least one artifact capable of falsifying a participant's remembered sequence.",
  "checklist": [
    "What trace fixes the timing?",
    "What artifact shows the state before and after?",
    "What evidence could contradict the current story?",
    "Which important interval has no trace?"
  ],
  "sources": [
    {
      "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-0727",
      "to": "MHC-D-RESEARCH-0728",
      "type": "use_before",
      "url": "/knowledge/ask-what-helped-what-hindered-and-what-changes-next"
    }
  ],
  "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"
    }
  ]
}