The Pre/Postmortem Template 2.3A.3-2

One Tool, Two Uses

The pre/postmortem template applies the same analytical structure to decisions before they are made and outcomes after they arrive. The template is a single document with two sections, used in sequence.

The Premortem (Before Committing)

Run the premortem before any commitment that passes the restraint score — the Score confirms you can take on the obligation; the premortem assesses what could go wrong with it.

1. Commitment statement. What exactly am I committing to? (Scope, duration, deliverables, counterparties.)

2. Failure modes. What could go wrong? List at least three failure scenarios — not worst-case fantasies, but structurally plausible outcomes. For each: what would cause it? How likely is it? How severe would the consequences be?

3. Prevention. For each failure mode: can it be prevented? If so, what specific action would prevent it, and what does that action cost? If the prevention cost exceeds the commitment's value, that is a signal — not necessarily a veto, but information the restraint score should have incorporated.

4. Response plan. For each failure mode that cannot be prevented: what would I do if it occurred? The response plan names the first three actions you would take — not a comprehensive recovery strategy, but the immediate structural moves that limit damage and preserve options.

5. Exit conditions. Under what circumstances would I abandon the commitment entirely? Name the threshold. A commitment without a defined exit condition is a commitment without a structural boundary — and the restraint principle requires structural boundaries.

The Postmortem (After the Outcome)

Run the postmortem after any commitment that has concluded — whether it succeeded, failed, or evolved into something different from what was planned.

1. Outcome statement. What happened? State the result factually, without interpretation.

2. Premortem comparison. Did the outcome match any of the failure modes I identified? If so, did the response plan work? If not, what happened instead — a failure mode I did not anticipate, or a success that arrived through a pathway I did not plan?

3. Error analysis. What did I get wrong? Three categories: prediction errors (I misjudged likelihood or severity), preparation errors (I identified the risk but did not prepare adequately), and response errors (I had a plan but failed to execute it under pressure).

4. Practice update. What changes does this outcome warrant — in my restraint score thresholds, my pre-commitment rules, my assumptions register, or my recovery architecture? The postmortem that does not produce a practice update has identified nothing to learn. The postmortem that always produces updates may be over-indexing on recent experience. The calibration improves with repetition.

Integration with the Weekly Review

The Pre/Postmortem Template feeds into the weekly review (2.2.1) at two points. Active premortems are reviewed during the "Update" step — have any of the identified failure modes become more or less likely since last review? Completed postmortems feed the "Decision" step — what practice changes have been identified, and what is the commitment to implementing them?

Over time, the collection of premortems and postmortems becomes the reader's decision archive — a record of how they anticipate, respond to, and learn from the outcomes their commitments produce. This archive is a private artifact in the individual evidence pack (sidebar 2.3A.3-3): evidence of learning, not a record for external display.