Go deep on "what went well" — extract the recipe, not just the win

A win recorded but not analyzed produces no transferable knowledge — identify what specifically caused it.

Why it works

The standard "what went well" list catalogues outcomes without extracting the behavioral cause. Without identifying the specific inputs (habits, decisions, structures) that produced the wins, the learning cannot be reproduced. Going deep on success is as important as auditing failure, because it builds the self-theory needed to do more of what actually works.

How to do it

1. List ten to twenty things that went well in the past year across all domains.
2. For the top five, write: "This worked because..." and push past the first obvious answer to the second and third causes.
3. Identify any patterns across multiple wins — a common input, habit, or context.
4. Extract one to two practices that you can explicitly continue or expand next year.

Evidence

Attribution research supports the value of accurate causal attribution for success and failure: attributing wins to controllable, specific factors (rather than luck or general talent) builds efficacy and produces more reliable repetition. (observational)

The "extract the recipe" practice is a practitioner application of attribution theory; the depth required varies by the complexity of the win.

Sources

• Weiner (1985), an attributional theory of motivation, Psychological Review

Common mistake

Writing "what went well" as a gratitude list rather than a causal analysis — gratitude is valuable but does not produce the behavioral prescription that makes a win repeatable.