Use this when a technical result looks promising, but the next action is unclear.
You’ll be able to state what the result supports, the conditions on your recommendation, and what still needs checking.
The distinction
A result answers a question. A decision depends on what the next step requires.
A promising result is not yet a recommendation. Ask what it establishes, what it leaves open, and whether that gap matters for the action you want to take.
Observation →then Interpretation →then Decision
01 / Follow a decision
Start with a situation
Choose a situation. Within each story, change a condition to compare what the evidence supports.
Two fictional situations. Explore the detail that changes each decision.
Fewer interruptions. Would we still notice when customers need help?
An online shop sends an urgent notification to the engineer responsible for fixing problems when purchases start failing. The point is to get someone’s attention so they can investigate and help customers buy again. But short-lived problems also trigger alerts, waking the engineer even when the problem has already passed.
The team received 18 overnight alerts last week. Someone proposes making the rule less sensitive, so it waits for failures to become more common before notifying anyone. Applied to last week’s activity, it would have sent only four alerts.
The proposal
“The less sensitive rule would have sent four alerts instead of eighteen last week. Let’s adopt it.”
Fewer interruptions would help the engineer. But the rule still needs to call someone in when needed.
Unchanged: The proposed rule would have sent 4 alerts instead of 18 on the same week’s activity.
Evidence and next step
Showing: Only the number of alerts
What this establishes Changed
The incidents behind the removed alerts have not been reviewed.
Next step Changed
Review the incidents before adopting the rule.
Why this follows
The count is lower. The incidents behind it are still unexamined.
Nobody has reviewed what happened after each alert: what kind of incident triggered it, how serious it was, or whether someone had to intervene.
How to proceed: Before changing the rule, review the incidents behind the alerts it would remove.
How this could sound in the report
“The less sensitive rule would have sent four alerts instead of eighteen last week. We have not reviewed the incidents behind the alerts it removes. I recommend checking their severity and whether they needed intervention before adopting the rule.”
A useful follow-up: For each removed alert, review the incident and the team’s response. Record which incidents needed intervention and whether the proposed rule would still have alerted someone.
Showing: Also the incidents behind the alerts
What this establishes Changed
One removed alert concerned an incident that needed intervention.
Next step Changed
Revise the rule so it still alerts someone to that incident.
Current rule
Alerted the engineer to that incident.
Proposed rule
Would not have alerted the engineer: the failures did not reach its higher trigger point.
Why this follows
The proposed rule removes an alert that led to necessary intervention.
The team reviewed the incidents behind the alerts. One involved customers being unable to buy and required the engineer to intervene.
How to proceed: Revise the proposed rule before adopting it.
It reduces the alert count, but would also miss an incident that needed intervention.
How this could sound in the report
“The less sensitive rule would have sent four alerts instead of eighteen last week, but it would remove an alert for a purchase failure that needed intervention. The current rule alerted the engineer; the proposed rule would not. I recommend revising the rule before adopting it.”
A useful follow-up: Revise which incidents trigger an alert. Recheck the revised rule against incidents that needed intervention and those that did not.
An alert count does not tell us what the alerts were for
An alert count does not tell us what the alerts were for
Count the interruptions
Connect alerts to incidents
Question
How many alerts would the new rule send?
What incidents triggered the alerts, how serious were they, and which needed intervention?
Finding
Four alerts instead of eighteen on last week’s activity.
A purchase failure needed intervention. The current rule alerted the engineer; the proposed rule would not have alerted them.
Count the interruptions
Question
How many alerts would the new rule send?
Finding
Four alerts instead of eighteen on last week’s activity.
Connect alerts to incidents
Question
What incidents triggered the alerts, how serious were they, and which needed intervention?
Finding
A purchase failure needed intervention. The current rule alerted the engineer; the proposed rule would not have alerted them.
Active orders passed the trial. Does the historical archive have to move too?
An online shop is preparing to move its order records to a new database—the system that stores them. Active orders are the orders staff still handle day to day. The historical archive holds completed orders kept for reference, using an older storage format.
In a practice run, the active orders moved correctly: amounts matched, and staff could find and read them. The historical archive was not tested. A colleague says, “Then the whole move has to wait.”
The proposal
“The historical archive hasn’t been tested. We can’t move the active orders either.”
Can the archive remain accessible in the old system while staff use active orders in the new one? Or does the shop need both together in the new system?
Unchanged: Active orders passed the trial. The historical archive is still untested.
Evidence and next step
Showing: No—the archive can stay in the old system
What this establishes Changed
The archive can stay accessible in the old system; the limited arrangement has been checked.
Next step Changed
Move the active orders. Keep the archive where it is.
Why this follows
The active orders can move while the archive waits.
Staff can find the right records across both systems, and the team has checked that the active orders stay correct and that the limited move can be undone safely.
How to proceed: Move active orders in small groups and check that they remain accessible and correct. Leave the archive in the old system until its own trial succeeds.
How this could sound in the report
“Active orders passed the trial. We have checked that staff can use them in the new system while the historical archive stays accessible in the old one, and that the limited move can be undone safely. I recommend moving the active orders while we test the archive separately.”
A useful follow-up: Check that staff can still find the right records during the limited move. Test the archive’s older format before including it.
Showing: Yes—staff need the active orders and archive together
What this establishes Changed
Staff need the archive in the new system too, but its older format has not been tested.
Next step Changed
Wait to move either group. Test the archive first.
Why this follows
The archive must be tested before this move.
The new customer-support screen needs active orders and purchase history together. Staff cannot use it with the archive left in the old system. The active-order trial does not establish that the archive’s older format will move correctly.
How to proceed: Hold the complete move. Test the archive’s older format, fix any problems, and check that the complete move can be undone safely before setting a date.
How this could sound in the report
“Active orders passed the trial, but staff need the historical archive in the new system too. Its older format has not been tested, so I recommend holding the complete move until that trial succeeds and a safe way to undo the move has been checked.”
A useful follow-up: Test the archive’s older format and fix any problems. Verify the complete move and a safe way to undo it before setting a date.
The same successful trial can support different plans
The same successful trial can support different plans
The archive can stay behind
The archive must move too
Requirement
Staff can work with active orders in the new system while the archive remains accessible in the old one. Using both systems and safely undoing the limited move have been checked.
Staff cannot do their work unless active orders and the historical archive are together in the new system.
What the trial supports
Move the tested active orders, keeping the untested archive in the old system. The additional checks establish that this limited arrangement works.
Test the archive before the complete move: the active-order trial does not show that the older format will move correctly.
The archive can stay behind
Requirement
Staff can work with active orders in the new system while the archive remains accessible in the old one. Using both systems and safely undoing the limited move have been checked.
What the trial supports
Move the tested active orders, keeping the untested archive in the old system. The additional checks establish that this limited arrangement works.
The archive must move too
Requirement
Staff cannot do their work unless active orders and the historical archive are together in the new system.
What the trial supports
Test the archive before the complete move: the active-order trial does not show that the older format will move correctly.
Reviewing the incidents behind the alerts can show that a quieter rule would miss a problem needing intervention. The archive can stay in the old system if staff can still do their work with active orders in the new one. Explain which requirement connects the result to your recommended action.
Wording to take with you
We found [result] when we tested [cases]. This supports [interpretation], but leaves [gap]. Because the next step needs [requirement], I recommend [action and scope].
Explore the reasoning behind this
Decision-Complete — Inspect the path from evidence to a defensible action.