/self

Decision Logs Beat Memory

Why I now log decision rationale instead of trusting recall when AI workflows become ambiguous.

Tags

I used to trust memory after hard choices. I now trust logs.

When a workflow failed, I would reconstruct what happened from fragments: chat transcripts, assumptions, and whatever I could still remember. It felt responsible, but it was mostly narrative repair. I was explaining decisions after the fact, not learning from them.

The turning point was simple: every non-trivial decision now gets one line of rationale at the moment it is made. I log what uncertainty I saw, what mode I chose (allow, ask, deny, or defer), and what evidence justified it. That tiny habit removed most post-incident ambiguity.

This did not make decisions perfect. It made them reviewable. I can now spot whether the error was policy design, weak evidence, or rushed judgment. That distinction matters because each failure type needs a different fix.

Decision logging loop: uncertainty, mode, evidence Uncertainty Mode Evidence
Logging rationale at decision time creates reviewable judgment instead of retrospective storytelling.

I still use intuition, but I no longer hide behind it. If a decision matters, it deserves a trace.

Continue Previous Building a Knowledge Surface Next The Weekly Observability Reset
Back to /self Related