Expert judgment is the compressed residue of every failure a scientist has seen. It only becomes visible at the point of decision, and it is easier to extract through disagreement than explanation.
Clearest write-up of the override method I've seen. The part that stays with me is what capture makes possible next. Once you've recorded why a decision was made and can trace it back to the evidence, you've built the one thing you need to check it later: wait for the outcome, then trace it back to the judgment that drove it. Reasoning you can repeat is useful. Reasoning you can score against what actually happened is a bigger deal, and the tracing is what makes it reachable. Feels like the natural next layer. Is closing that loop something you're thinking about, or is it out of scope?
Clearest write-up of the override method I've seen. The part that stays with me is what capture makes possible next. Once you've recorded why a decision was made and can trace it back to the evidence, you've built the one thing you need to check it later: wait for the outcome, then trace it back to the judgment that drove it. Reasoning you can repeat is useful. Reasoning you can score against what actually happened is a bigger deal, and the tracing is what makes it reachable. Feels like the natural next layer. Is closing that loop something you're thinking about, or is it out of scope?
Thanks for reading!
Great article Chris