A Safer Way to Make Big Decisions

Introduction

A decision routine is a short, repeatable process used before committing to a high-stakes choice. It is worth using when the cost of being wrong is high, the decision is hard to reverse, the evidence is uncertain, or the first attractive option is likely to crowd out better alternatives. The routine does not replace judgement. It slows premature commitment long enough to ask: What are we really deciding? What happens if we are wrong? What are the serious alternatives? What evidence would change our mind? What action follows now?

This matters because many poor decisions are not dramatic failures of intelligence. They are ordinary process failures: a narrow frame, hidden optimism, weak comparison, group silence, or a vague plan that nobody turns into action. Research and practice from surgery, public appraisal, intelligence analysis, healthcare priority-setting and behavioural science all point in the same direction: simple structures can make judgement safer when stakes, uncertainty and consequences rise. Cancer Control+3New England Journal of Medicine+3GOV.UK [nejm.org]nejm.orgNew England Journal of MedicineA Surgical Safety Checklist to Reduce Morbidity and…by AB Haynes · 2009 · Cited by 7765 — Introduction…

When a routine is worth using

Most everyday choices do not need a formal process. Using a checklist to choose lunch or a full decision matrix to buy socks would waste attention. The value of a decision routine is selective friction: it makes the right decisions slightly slower so the wrong commitments become less likely.

A routine is most useful when at least one of these conditions is present:

Research on high-risk events describes decision-making under crisis conditions as difficult because time pressure, uncertainty and dynamic environments interact: the decision-maker must act while the situation is still changing. That is why the routine should be scaled to the decision. In an emergency, it may be a 90-second pause: name the goal, name the biggest risk, name the next reversible step. For a board-level or policy decision, it may be a written appraisal, independent challenge and scheduled review point. [PMC]pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.govPMCDecision-Making During High-Risk EventsPMCDecision-Making During High-Risk Events

The clearest public example of a simple routine improving high-stakes outcomes is the World Health Organization surgical safety checklist. In a major study across eight hospitals, introducing a 19-item checklist was associated with reductions in surgical complications and deaths; the WHO later summarised the results as showing surgery-related deaths and complications lowered by about one third during the trial. The checklist worked not because surgeons lacked expertise, but because complex, consequential work is vulnerable to omissions, communication failures and assumptions that nobody says aloud. [New England Journal of Medicine]nejm.orgNew England Journal of MedicineA Surgical Safety Checklist to Reduce Morbidity and…by AB Haynes · 2009 · Cited by 7765 — Introduction…

That lesson transfers cautiously to thinking skills. A decision routine is not magic, and it cannot guarantee a good outcome. Its practical purpose is narrower: reduce preventable errors before commitment. It makes the decision visible enough that a person or team can challenge the frame, check the evidence, compare alternatives and decide what to monitor afterwards.

The three checks that protect big choices

A useful high-stakes routine does not need dozens of steps. It needs three checks that are easy to remember and hard to fake: costs, alternatives and uncertainty. Together they counter three common failure modes: underestimating the downside, comparing only against the status quo, and pretending that unknowns are smaller than they are.

The cost check: what could this really consume?

The cost check asks for the full price of the decision, not just the most visible expense. In personal decisions, that may include time, stress, lost options and relationship strain. In organisations, it includes implementation time, coordination cost, opportunity cost, reputation risk, maintenance and the cost of reversing course.

Public-sector appraisal guidance makes this explicit. The UK Treasury Green Book describes appraisal as the process of assessing the costs, benefits and risks of different options for achieving objectives, and it frames the work as structured advice for decision-makers rather than a substitute for judgement. Its importance is not the bureaucracy of the document, but the discipline it represents: before choosing, define the objective, generate options, assess costs and benefits, account for risk and uncertainty, and make the trade-offs visible. [GOV.UK]assets.publishing.service.gov.ukUK The Green Book – UK government guidance on appraisalUK The Green Book – UK government guidance on appraisal

A practical cost check should ask:

This prevents a common analytical mistake: treating the decision as if it ends at approval. Many high-stakes choices do not fail at the moment of selection; they fail during delivery, when the real costs arrive.

The alternatives check: what else is genuinely live?

Bad decisions often begin with a narrow frame. The choice is presented as “do this or do nothing”, “approve or reject”, “stay or quit”, “buy now or miss out”. A decision routine should force at least two live alternatives before commitment. “Do nothing” can be one option, but it should not be the only comparison.

Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis, or MCDA, is one formal version of this idea. It is used when decisions involve several criteria that cannot easily be reduced to one number, such as health benefits, cost, fairness, feasibility and stakeholder priorities. Health-care decision research describes MCDA as a structured, explicit way to confront trade-offs between multiple, often conflicting objectives. UK government analytical guidance similarly presents MCDA as a way to compare options where there are conflicting objectives, mixed criteria and multiple stakeholder perspectives. [ISPOR.org]ispor.orgMultiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Health CareMultiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Health Care

For most personal or workplace decisions, the routine can be simpler than formal MCDA:

The key is to compare options against the same criteria. A favourite plan often looks strong because it is described in rich detail while alternatives are left vague. A fair comparison gives every serious option the same test: cost, upside, downside, reversibility, evidence, timing and fit with the objective.

The uncertainty check: what do we not know, and does it matter?

Uncertainty is not a reason to freeze. It is a reason to sort unknowns. Some unknowns are tolerable because the decision is reversible or the downside is limited. Others matter because a single false assumption could break the whole plan.

A good uncertainty check separates four questions:

This is different from asking for “more research” in general. More information can become a delay tactic. The useful question is whether specific information would change the decision. If it would not, decide. If it would, gather that information before locking in.

Reference class forecasting is one way to discipline uncertainty in project decisions. Instead of relying only on an inside view of the current plan, it asks how similar projects actually performed. Bent Flyvbjerg’s work on project forecasting argues that inaccurate projections of costs, demand and impacts are a major source of risk, and that reference class forecasting improves accuracy by grounding forecasts in comparable past cases rather than the project team’s unique story. [ResearchGate+2Project Management Institute]researchgate.netOpen source on researchgate.net.

The deeper lesson is useful beyond infrastructure or project management: when a decision feels unique, ask what class of situation it belongs to. A house renovation, career change, software rollout, product launch or legal dispute may feel personal, but other people have made structurally similar choices. Their outcomes give a base rate. The base rate does not decide for you, but it stops your preferred narrative from being the only evidence in the room.

How to slow commitment without killing momentum

A high-stakes routine should be light enough to use and strong enough to matter. If it becomes a 40-page ritual for every decision, people will avoid it or fill it in after the real choice has already been made. The best routines create a short pause at the point where enthusiasm is highest and challenge is most needed.

One useful pattern is the two-door test:

• One-way door: hard to reverse, expensive, public, legally binding, strategically defining or personally life-changing. Use the full routine.
• Two-way door: reversible, low-cost, experimental or easy to stop. Use a shorter routine and learn by acting.

For a one-way-door decision, the minimum routine should include:

The pre-mortem deserves special attention because it changes the social psychology of challenge. Instead of asking “Does anyone think this will fail?”, which can make dissent feel disloyal, it asks the group to imagine that the decision has failed and explain why. The technique is associated with Gary Klein and builds on “prospective hindsight”: imagining a future event as if it has already happened. The underlying research by Deborah Mitchell, Jay Russo and Nancy Pennington found that this temporal shift can improve people’s ability to identify reasons for future outcomes. [The Uncertainty Project+2ResearchGate]theuncertaintyproject.orgOpen source on theuncertaintyproject.org.

The pre-mortem is especially useful when the room is already leaning one way. It legitimises doubt before commitment. A good version is quiet before it is conversational: each participant writes failure reasons independently, then the group combines them. This reduces the chance that the most senior or confident person sets the boundaries of acceptable concern.

A practical routine for high-stakes choices

The following routine is designed for decisions that are important enough to justify a pause but not so technical that they need a specialist decision analyst. It can be used by an individual, a team, a family, a manager or a project group.

Step 1: Name the real decision

Write one sentence beginning: “The decision is whether to…” If that sentence is hard to complete, the problem is not yet ready for commitment.

Then add the objective: “The decision should achieve…” This prevents a common confusion: choosing between activities rather than outcomes. “Should we buy this tool?” becomes “What is the safest and most cost-effective way to reduce turnaround time by 20% within six months?” That reframing may reveal options that were invisible before.

Step 2: Set the threshold for using the routine

Before analysing the answer, classify the decision:

• Low-stakes: reversible and limited downside. Decide quickly.

This threshold prevents both impulsiveness and over-analysis. The purpose is not to think slowly about everything. It is to reserve careful analysis for choices where better process can plausibly prevent harm.

Step 3: Build an option set before defending a favourite

List at least three options before evaluating any one option in detail. Include a smaller test if possible. In many decisions, the best move is not “yes” or “no” but “run a limited trial, with a stop rule”.

For example, a company considering an expensive software migration might compare:

• full migration now;
• staged migration by department;
• pilot with one workflow;
• improving the current system for six months;
• cancelling the migration and reallocating funds.

The pilot may not be the final answer, but including it changes the decision. It creates a route for learning without pretending certainty is higher than it is.

Step 4: Compare options against the same criteria

Use a small table or written notes. Do not let the favourite option receive a polished business case while alternatives get one-line dismissals.

Compare each option on:

• expected benefit;
• full cost;
• worst credible downside;
• reversibility;
• time to learn whether it is working;
• effects on people not in the room;
• key uncertainties;
• evidence quality.

This is the everyday version of structured appraisal and MCDA. The point is not mathematical precision. The point is symmetry. A routine makes it harder to praise one option for its upside while judging another only by its risks.

Step 5: Run the pre-mortem

State: “It is one year later. We chose this option. It failed badly. What happened?”

Ask everyone to write answers silently first. Then group the answers into categories such as delivery failure, cost overrun, stakeholder resistance, legal risk, technical weakness, wrong timing, poor incentives or neglected maintenance.

The pre-mortem should end with changes to the decision, not just a list of worries. Each major failure reason should become one of four things:

• a mitigation;
• a test before commitment;
• a monitoring signal;
• a reason to choose another option.

A pre-mortem that does not affect action becomes theatre. Its value is in converting imagined failure into design changes before the real cost is paid.

Step 6: Decide what evidence would change the decision

Before searching for more information, write: “We would change our decision if…” This protects against two opposite errors: cherry-picking evidence to support the favourite, and delaying forever because uncertainty remains.

In intelligence analysis, structured techniques such as Analysis of Competing Hypotheses were developed to help analysts evaluate evidence against multiple possible explanations, with special attention to evidence that could disconfirm rather than merely confirm a preferred view. Later reviews have debated how well such techniques work in practice, but the central discipline is valuable for ordinary high-stakes thinking: do not ask only “What supports my view?” Ask “Which evidence would be awkward for my view if it were true?” [Department of Statistics+2Wiley Online Library]stat.berkeley.eduOpen source on berkeley.edu.

This step is especially important when people are under social pressure. A team can always find reasons to continue a project once reputations are attached. Predefined change conditions make revision less humiliating because they turn adaptation into part of the plan.

Step 7: Convert the decision into an action trigger

A decision is unfinished until it changes behaviour. “We should be more careful”, “We need to monitor this” and “Let us keep an eye on it” are not action plans. They are intentions waiting to dissolve.

Behavioural research on implementation intentions shows why specificity matters. If-then plans link a future cue to a planned response: “If X happens, then I will do Y.” Evidence reviewed by the US National Cancer Institute and behavioural research literature indicates that forming such plans can help people translate intentions into action by making the relevant situation and response easier to recognise and execute. [Cancer Control+2PMC]cancercontrol.cancer.govOpen source on cancer.gov.

For high-stakes decisions, this means ending with concrete triggers:

• “If costs exceed the forecast by 15%, the sponsor must review scope within five working days.”
• “If the pilot fails to meet the safety threshold, rollout stops automatically.”
• “If two independent advisers reject the assumption, we revise the plan before signing.”
• “If no progress is visible by the review date, the default is to pause rather than continue.”

The trigger is what turns thinking into governance. It reduces the need for heroic willpower later, when sunk costs and embarrassment make stopping harder.

Common failure modes and how the routine catches them

Decision routines fail when they become decorative. A document can look careful while merely laundering a choice already made. The point is not to complete a form; it is to create moments where the decision can still change.

The most common failure modes are predictable:

The routine starts too late. If the process begins after public commitment, people will use it to defend the decision. Use the routine before budgets, announcements or identity become attached.

The objective is vague. “Improve performance” or “modernise the system” can justify almost anything. A safer objective states the outcome, constraint and timeframe.

Alternatives are fake. A weak straw-man alternative makes the favourite look inevitable. The routine should require at least one alternative that a reasonable person might choose.

The cost check excludes implementation. Many choices look good at approval and fail in operation. Include training, maintenance, coordination, disruption and reversal.

Uncertainty is treated as a footnote. If a key assumption could overturn the decision, it belongs in the main analysis, not an appendix.

The pre-mortem becomes a complaint session. Failure reasons must become mitigations, tests, monitoring signals or exit criteria.

No one owns the next action. A decision without named responsibility and timing is only a preference.

Research on judgement “noise” adds another warning: even when people are trying to be fair and professional, judgements can vary more than organisations expect. Kahneman, Sibony and Sunstein popularised the term “decision hygiene” for practices that reduce unwanted variability, such as structuring assessments, separating independent judgements before discussion, and using consistent criteria. The useful lesson for high-stakes routines is that process should protect against both bias and inconsistency. [Behavioral Scientist+2Sage Journals]behavioralscientist.orga conversation with daniel kahneman about noisea conversation with daniel kahneman about noise

One practical way to reduce noise is to collect independent estimates before group discussion. For example, ask each participant to write their estimate of cost, risk or probability privately before hearing others. Then compare the spread. A wide spread is not embarrassing; it is information. It shows where the group is pretending to agree.

What good implementation looks like

A safer decision routine should be visible, brief and normal. It should not depend on a rare expert facilitator or a heroic culture of candour. The test is whether people actually use it when pressure rises.

For an individual, implementation may mean keeping a one-page decision note for major commitments: the decision, options, costs, uncertainty, pre-mortem, trigger and review date. This is especially useful for choices where emotion is high, such as quitting a job, making a large purchase, moving home or entering a major agreement. The note creates a record of what seemed true before the outcome was known.

For a team, implementation should make dissent routine rather than personal. Assign someone to test the favourite option, but rotate the role so the same person is not always treated as negative. Ask for independent written concerns before discussion. Keep a visible list of assumptions. Decide in advance which signals will prompt review.

For an organisation, implementation means matching routine depth to decision class. A procurement decision, safety change, product launch, policy intervention or restructuring should not all use the same process, but each should have a clear threshold for when formal appraisal, independent challenge or staged approval is required. The UK Green Book is one example of a mature public framework that separates structured evidence and advice from the final act of political or managerial judgement. [GOV.UK]GOV.UKthe green book appraisal and evaluation in central governmentthe green book appraisal and evaluation in central government

The strongest routines also include a feedback loop. After the decision has had time to play out, compare the outcome with the original reasoning. Were the costs wrong? Did the pre-mortem catch the real failure mode? Which evidence was overweighted? Which uncertainty mattered? This is how a routine improves thinking over time: not by making every decision perfect, but by making mistakes easier to inspect.

A compact version for real life

A full routine is useful for major decisions, but many situations need something shorter. The following compact version can be used in ten minutes:

1. Decision: What exactly are we deciding?
2. Stakes: What makes this worth slowing down?
3. Options: What are three plausible routes?
4. Costs: What could this consume or damage?
5. Uncertainty: What assumption could change the answer?
6. Pre-mortem: If this fails, what is the most likely reason?
7. Trigger: What action follows, and what signal makes us stop or revise?

This is not a guarantee of wisdom. It is a small policy intervention for the mind: a repeatable pause inserted before commitment. Used selectively, it helps analytical thinking do its most important job in high-stakes choices — not producing endless analysis, but making the next commitment safer, clearer and easier to correct.

Amazon book picks

Further Reading

Books and field guides related to A Safer Way to Make Big Decisions. Use these as the next step if you want deeper reading beyond the article.

Book

Decisive

By Chip Heath, Dan Heath

Directly covers widening options, reality-testing assumptions, managing uncertainty, and creating decision routines.

See on Amazon

Book

Thinking, Fast and Slow

By Daniel Kahneman

Explains the cognitive biases and process failures that make high-stakes decisions unsafe without safeguards.

See on Amazon

Book

The Checklist Manifesto

By Atul Gawande

Shows how simple routines and checklists reduce preventable errors in medicine, aviation, and complex organisations.

See on Amazon

Book

Superforecasting

By Philip E. Tetlock, Dan Gardner

Teaches forecasting habits, uncertainty handling, evidence updates, and outside-view thinking useful before major commitments.

See on Amazon

Browse more on Amazon: Decisive Thinking, Fast and Slow The Checklist Manifesto

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

eBay marketplace picks

Marketplace Samples

Live-tested eBay searches with available results related to this page.

Shop location

Using USA USA USAUKCanadaAustraliaIreland

Example eBay listing

14 Food Allergens Sign Safer Food Better Business SFBB Poster Laminated x 1

Search eBay.co.uk: safer poster

Browse similar on eBay.co.uk

Example eBay listing

Spick and span? Good housekeeping a tidy place is a safer place Safety poster

Search eBay.co.uk: safer poster

Browse similar on eBay.co.uk

Example eBay listing

Safer Food Better Business SFBB 1Y Diary, Genuine binding - 2 A4 allergy poster

Search eBay.co.uk: safer poster

Browse similar on eBay.co.uk

Example eBay listing

Food Allergies Intolerance Sign Poster X 2 Laminated Safer Food Better Business

Search eBay.co.uk: safer poster

Browse similar on eBay.co.uk

Browse more on eBay.co.uk

Example items shown for inspiration; availability and pricing can change. Branchoria may earn a commission if you purchase through outbound eBay links.

Endnotes

1. Source: GOV.UK
   Title: the green book appraisal and evaluation in central government
   Link: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-green-book-appraisal-and-evaluation-in-central-government

2. Source: ispor.org
   Title: Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Health Care
   Link: https://www.ispor.org/heor-resources/good-practices/article/multiple-criteria-decision-analysis-for-health-care-decision-making—emerging-good-practices

3. Source: cancercontrol.cancer.gov
   Link: https://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/brp/research/constructs/implementation-intentions

4. Source: pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
   Title: PMCDecision-Making During High-Risk Events
   Link: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10564111/

5. Source: who.int
   Title: 11 12 2010 checklist helps reduce surgical complications deaths
   Link: https://www.who.int/news/item/11-12-2010-checklist-helps-reduce-surgical-complications-deaths

6. Source: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk
   Title: UK The Green Book – UK government guidance on appraisal
   Link: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/698dbcd17da91680ad7f4308/The_Green_Book_2026.pdf

7. Source: analysisfunction.civilservice.gov.uk
   Title: an introductory guide to mcda
   Link: https://analysisfunction.civilservice.gov.uk/policy-store/an-introductory-guide-to-mcda/

8. Source: researchgate.net
   Link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233258056_Curbing_Optimism_Bias_and_Strategic_Misrepresentation_in_Planning_Reference_Class_Forecasting_in_Practice

9. Source: researchgate.net
   Link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227768493_Back_to_the_future_Temporal_perspective_in_the_explanation_of_events

10. Source: researchgate.net
    Title: Research Gate Temporal Perspective in the Explanation of Events
    Link: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/J-Russo/publication/227768493_Back_to_the_future_Temporal_perspective_in_the_explanation_of_events/links/59b83a44458515bb9c43e1fe/Back-to-the-future-Temporal-perspective-in-the-explanation-of-events.pdf

11. Source: onlinelibrary.wiley.com
    Link: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/acp.3550

12. Source: pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
    Title: PMCPromoting the translation of intentions into action by
    Link: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4500900/

13. Source: pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
    Link: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11643215/

14. Source: data.london.gov.uk
    Title: the green book 2026 updates following the 2025 review
    Link: https://data.london.gov.uk/blog/the-green-book-2026-updates-following-the-2025-review/

15. Source: researchgate.net
    Link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355070855_Project_Pre-mortem_using_Prospective_Hindsight_An_Unexplored_Tool_to_address_Healthcare_Projects_Implementation_barriers

16. Source: researchgate.net
    Title: 3229642 Performing a Project Premortem
    Link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/3229642_Performing_a_Project_Premortem

17. Source: researchgate.net
    Link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/394886141_The_Impact_of_Cognitive_Biases_on_Decision-Making_in_High-Stakes_Environments

18. Source: researchgate.net
    Link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331942237_The_analysis_of_competing_hypotheses_in_intelligence_analysis

19. Source: researchgate.net
    Link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23789023_A_Surgical_Safety_Checklist_to_Reduce_Morbidity_and_Mortality_in_a_Global_Population

20. Source: researchgate.net
    Link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286901473_Decision-making_with_uncertainty_The_value_of_information

21. Source: researchgate.net
    Link: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mohamed_Mourad_Lafifi/post/How-to-present-or-deal-with-MCDA-output-of-Aggregating-individual-Judgements-and-Aggregate-Individual-Priorities/attachment/5d4dfc55cfe4a7968dbec5df/AS%3A790125290201088%401565391957399/download/Multiple%2BCriteria%2BDecision%2BAnalysis%2Bfor%2BHealth%2BCare%2BDecisionMaking-%2BAn%2BIntroduction%2B_%2BReport%2B1%2Bof%2Bthe%2BISPOR%2BMCDAEmerging%2BGood%2BPractices%2BTask%2BForce.pdf

22. Source: medium.com
    Link: https://medium.com/%40Thinkbeyondlab/the-high-stakes-decision-protocol-a-framework-for-cognitive-efficiency-b92fbf45db2c

23. Source: medium.com
    Link: https://medium.com/%40sean.j.moran/everyday-decisions-are-noisier-than-you-think-heres-how-to-fix-that-3a99dfaa8f59

24. Source: onlinelibrary.wiley.com
    Link: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/aaai.12135

25. Source: nejm.org
    Link: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa0810119
    Source snippet

    New England Journal of MedicineA Surgical Safety Checklist to Reduce Morbidity and...by AB Haynes · 2009 · Cited by 7765 — Introduction...

26. Source: pmi.org
    Link: https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/nobel-project-management-reference-class-forecasting-8068

27. Source: theuncertaintyproject.org
    Link: https://www.theuncertaintyproject.org/tools/pre-mortem

28. Source: stat.berkeley.edu
    Link: https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~aldous/157/Papers/Tradecraft%20Primer-apr09.pdf

29. Source: behavioralscientist.org
    Title: a conversation with daniel kahneman about noise
    Link: https://behavioralscientist.org/a-conversation-with-daniel-kahneman-about-noise/

30. Source: journals.sagepub.com
    Link: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00018392221119294

31. Source: pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
    Link: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12330140/

32. Source: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
    Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19144931/

33. Source: pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
    Link: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6652169/

34. Source: Wikipedia
    Title: Analysis of competing hypotheses
    Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_of_competing_hypotheses

35. Source: thriva.co
    Title: implementation intentions
    Link: https://thriva.co/hub/behaviour-change/implementation-intentions

36. Source: ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk
    Link: https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/document/175715

37. Source: theuncertaintyproject.org
    Title: applying decision hygiene to yield better judgment
    Link: https://www.theuncertaintyproject.org/threads/applying-decision-hygiene-to-yield-better-judgment

38. Source: enterpriseriskmag.com
    Title: imagining a future
    Link: https://enterpriseriskmag.com/2019/02/imagining-a-future/

Additional References

1. Source: youtube.com
   Title: How Leaders Make Decisions Under Pressure Without Freezing or Failing
   Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6772MhZNUo
   Source snippet

   "Decision routines" high stakes choices thinking skills 5 tips to improve your [critical thinking]({{ 'critical-skills/' | relative_url }}) - Samantha Agoos TED-Ed...

2. Source: youtube.com
   Title: How Experienced SREs Make High-Stakes Decisions in Uncertain Situations
   Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsMc3Ak52Gw
   Source snippet

   How to Make Good Decisions | A Framework for Leaders Under Pressure...

3. Source: youtube.com
   Title: 5 tips to improve your critical thinking
   Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dItUGF8GdTw
   Source snippet

   How Experienced SREs Make High-Stakes Decisions in Uncertain Situations...

4. Source: youtube.com
   Title: How to Make Good Decisions | A Framework for Leaders Under Pressure
   Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pzB0IvQOjw
   Source snippet

   Critical Thinking & the Decision-Making Process...

5. Source: youtube.com
   Title: Critical Thinking & the Decision-Making Process
   Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OWPEtC_dPU
   Source snippet

   How Leaders Make Decisions Under Pressure Without Freezing or Failing...

6. Source: arxiv.org
   Title: arXiv From Nobel Prize to Project Management: Getting Risks Right
   Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.3642

7. Source: 1000minds.com
   Link: https://www.1000minds.com/articles/noisy-expert-judgments

8. Source: academia.edu
   Link: https://www.academia.edu/26452229/A_Surgical_Safety_Checklist_to_Reduce_Morbidity_and_Mortality_in_a_Global_Population

9. Source: futuribles.com
   Link: https://www.futuribles.com/wp-content/uploads/related-documents/analysis-of-competing-hypotheses.pdf?postId=73706

10. Source: regulatoryreform.com
    Link: https://regulatoryreform.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/UK-Appraisal-and-Evaluation-in-Central-Governmentgreen_book_complete.pdf