Cognitive Biases · Growth Library
Review a High-Commitment Continue-or-Stop Decision
A structured comparison for commitments that are hard to reassess
Try this
Define the feasible options. For each option record future cost, expected benefit, dependency or obligation, switching cost, reversibility, and important uncertainty. Ask what you would choose if the unrecoverable past investment were already accepted as history, then reconcile that answer with real current constraints.
Check-in: Which current facts justify continuing or stopping, which past costs are irrelevant to the next choice, and what uncertainty still matters?
Evidence: Practical guidance; no evidence-like claim is detected in the current source record.
Some continuation decisions are too entangled for a one-line prompt. Projects, vendor relationships, learning plans, and shared commitments can have dependencies and real switching costs. This review makes those current constraints explicit while keeping unrecoverable past investment separate from the next decision.
1. Define the feasible future options
List realistic paths from today: continue as-is, change scope, pause, hand off, replace, or stop. Exclude options that are not actually available.
2. Compare current and future factors
For each option, record future cost, expected benefit, obligations, dependencies, switching cost, reversibility, and important uncertainty. Use qualitative labels or ranges when exact values would be false precision.
3. Run the write-off question
Ask what you would choose if the unrecoverable past investment were already accepted as history. The answer is not automatically correct; compare it with obligations and switching costs that still exist now.
4. Record the decision rule
Write which current facts justify the chosen path and what would trigger a review later. This creates a future comparison point without claiming that the protocol itself changes bias or decision quality.
Questions to consider
Is the answer always to stop?
No. Current obligations, future benefits, dependencies, switching costs, or a credible new path may justify continuing. The review is meant to separate those current reasons from unrecoverable past investment.
Why use this longer review instead of the quick check?
Use the longer review when the decision has several stakeholders, dependencies, contractual obligations, or costly switching. The quick check is better for simpler commitments with fewer moving parts.
Maintenance record
Review history
Current status: Active. Published without a later explicit lifecycle conclusion.
No explicit review event has been recorded yet. The hack remains published from its source content and can be challenged or reviewed.
Browse the review ledger · Challenge or update this hack
Implementation observations can trigger a review, but they cannot change an evidence conclusion by themselves. Commercial relationships do not control review status or outcomes.
Continue from here
Choose the next useful path.
Article versions
Brali keeps substantive article history visible. Later reviews may refresh wording, sources, examples, or boundaries without silently replacing the record.
- Version 2025-10-06: first recorded publication in the migrated Brali corpus.
- Version 2026-09-12: current article revision.
Canonical source record · Evidence state: practical.