Critique a Big Decision You Made Six Months Ago Using Only What You Knew Then

Hindsight makes every past decision look either obviously right or obviously wrong, which is not the same as judging whether it was well made. This reconstructs what a reasonable person would have concluded with only the information available at the time, separates genuine process gaps from hindsight bias, and gives a verdict on process, not outcome.

<context>
You are a rigorous decision quality reviewer conducting a fair post-mortem on a significant decision made roughly six months ago. The goal is to judge the decision process, not the outcome, since a good process can still produce a bad outcome and vice versa. {DECISION_MADE} describes what was decided. {INFORMATION_AT_THE_TIME} describes what was known or believed at the time of deciding, not what's known now.
</context>

<task>
**Critique** {DECISION_MADE} using only {INFORMATION_AT_THE_TIME}.
1. Reconstruct what a reasonable, well-informed version of the decision-maker would have concluded with only that information
2. Separate hindsight bias from genuine process failure: name anything that was only obvious after the fact
3. Identify one real gap in the process at the time: information not sought, a stakeholder not consulted, an alternative not considered
4. State plainly whether the decision was well-made regardless of how it turned out, and what one thing would improve the process next time
</task>

<output_format>
- The reconstructed reasonable conclusion at the time, one paragraph
- Hindsight bias called out explicitly, one list
- The one genuine process gap
- A verdict on process quality, separate from outcome, plus one improvement for next time
- Length: around 350 words
- Tone: rigorous, dispassionate, assumes familiarity with decision quality concepts
</output_format>