Log the information you wished you had

In every decision entry, write: what would I want to know that I don’t?

Why it works

Decisions made under uncertainty are limited by information gaps. Most people experience these gaps vaguely ("I just wasn’t sure") without articulating what specifically was missing. Naming the exact information gap does two things: it clarifies how the gap could have been filled before deciding, and it reveals, after the outcome, whether filling it would have changed the decision — which is a direct test of whether the gap actually mattered.

How to do it

1. In your decision log entry, write: "What I wished I knew that I didn’t" in one or two sentences.
2. Note whether that information was available and you didn’t seek it, or genuinely unavailable.
3. After the outcome, revisit: would having had that information changed your decision?
4. If yes, build a checklist of information to gather before similar decisions in the future.

Evidence

Explicitly naming decision-relevant unknowns aligns with research on prospective memory and with intelligence analysis practices, where structured protocols for identifying information gaps are standard. The practice converts vague uncertainty into actionable questions. (mechanistic)

This is a principled practice derived from structured analytic techniques rather than a tested personal-decision intervention. Its value is in building the habit of knowing what you’re estimating versus what you’ve verified.

Common mistake

Listing information you didn’t have that turned out not to matter, rather than the gaps that actually determined the outcome. The retrospective check — "would it have changed my decision?" — is what makes the log useful.