3.2 The Human Side
3. How do I act?

Practice lab · Decision Journal

Complete & Continue Next Lesson Learn More

Put your learning to work

Keep the reasons you can learn from

Record your DailyCup decision before seeing the outcome. Then review the process and choose safeguards you could actually use in your next decision.

1 Take a first view2 Work and test3 Record your judgement

Try a decision · choose one

When should you write the first decision-journal entry?

Correct. A contemporaneous entry lets you distinguish what you knew then from what you learned later. Keep the original and append dated revisions.

Reconsider this choice. A contemporaneous entry lets you distinguish what you knew then from what you learned later. Keep the original and append dated revisions. Try another answer.

Case briefing video coming soon

Apply The Human Side

Read the full narration

You have now built the tools in The Human Side. The next task is to apply them to the supplied fictional case. Start with the objective and constraints. Record your first decision and the evidence supporting it. Work the numbers using consistent definitions and units. Invite the strongest reasonable challenge. When new information arrives, keep your first record and explain what changes. Finish with a conditional conclusion: what you would do, why, what remains uncertain and what evidence would trigger a review. This is a teaching exercise with fictional information. The quality of your reasoning matters more than whether a simulated outcome later looks favourable.

Decision journal lab.

Bring your DailyCup case and write a dated record before outcomes. Use hypothetical information only; no account details or personal finances are needed.

Strong process · good outcome

Check repeatability; retain what worked without assuming certainty.

Strong process · bad outcome

Inspect new information, acknowledged risks and avoidable gaps.

Weak process · good outcome

Investigate luck; do not copy an unsupported method blindly.

Weak process · bad outcome

Identify actionable errors without hindsight rewriting.

Try a decision · choose one

A careful process later loses money; a rumour-led decision later gains. What can you conclude from those outcomes alone?

Correct. Outcomes matter, but a single result is insufficient to judge the original process. Examine the risks acknowledged, checks made and genuinely new information.

Reconsider this choice. Outcomes matter, but a single result is insufficient to judge the original process. Examine the risks acknowledged, checks made and genuinely new information. Try another answer.

Journal template · complete before outcome

  • Objective and horizon
  • Proposed action and current price
  • Material evidence and source checks
  • Best alternative and opportunity cost
  • Assumptions, uncertainty and ranges
  • Strongest opposing case
  • Two review conditions and responses
  • Review date or resolution rule

Keep the original entry. Add dated revisions separately; do not replace earlier reasoning.

Use the supplied workbook or your own document. Save the first entry before opening an outcome card.

Process cards · score before reveal

Analyst A reconciles the available figures, documents uncertainty, considers a credible alternative and follows the fictional mandate. Analyst B uses an unsupported rumour, omits the loss-capacity check and leaves no source trail. Assess both on evidence, alternatives and constraints before opening the outcomes.

Outcome cards · reveal after your first process review

A suffers a 20% loss after an unexpected event not reasonably identifiable in the supplied initial information. B gains 15% after an unexpected favourable event. These are invented outcomes, not real performance records.

Review what the outcomes teach without letting them rewrite the original process evidence. Ask whether either process could still be improved and what new evidence now matters.

DailyCup · the decision-process review

Write a dated decision journal before revealing the outcome cards. Then add a 250–350 word process review after the supplied outcomes. Keep original reasoning unchanged and add a separate revision.

  • Record objective, proposed action, evidence, alternative, uncertainty and contrary case.
  • Set two observable review conditions and describe a proportionate response.
  • Assess Analyst A and B on their documented process before using their outcomes.
  • Explain one avoidable weakness, one genuinely new fact and one specific improvement without diagnosing personalities.

Original classroom rubric · 15 marks

  • Evidence and calculations (4 marks): Uses relevant sources, accurate arithmetic and explicit assumptions.
  • Analysis and alternatives (4 marks): Explains causal mechanisms and treats the strongest contrary case fairly.
  • Judgement and revision (4 marks): Weights the evidence, gives a conditional action and explains changes or retained views.
  • Communication and process (3 marks): Clear dated record, priority unknowns and useful review conditions; no hindsight rewriting.
Indicative response after your own attempt

A verified and conditional process can produce a loss; a rumour-led process can profit from a favourable surprise. The review should retain both outcomes as evidence without making either the sole verdict. A useful improvement might reconcile realised prices before modelling and preserve independent committee views. Review triggers need defined populations, periods, sources and actions. The journal should distinguish what was reasonably knowable from later information and should not claim that a checklist or a single score establishes future investing skill.

This is an On Judgement practice rubric, not an official AQA mark scheme.

My Investing Judgement

Try a decision · choose one

Which safeguard could you check whether you actually followed?

Correct. The first safeguard specifies a situation and an observable action. Later, check whether you followed it and whether it helped across several decisions.

Reconsider this choice. The first safeguard specifies a situation and an observable action. Later, check whether you followed it and whether it helped across several decisions. Try another answer.

Use your fictional cases, private reflections and dated journal to prepare a 400–600 word review organised under the three questions. This is a record of observed choices and a plan to improve, not a personality test.

1. What do I know?

Where did familiarity or a first number make me feel I knew more than I could support? What did I notice only after slowing down?

Give a specific example from your original and revised work, a strength or limitation you noticed, and one practical safeguard. State what remains uncertain.

2. What influences me?

Whose confidence affected mine? Which feeling or belief influenced the evidence I sought, and what safeguard helped?

Give a specific example from your original and revised work, a strength or limitation you noticed, and one practical safeguard. State what remains uncertain.

3. How do I act?

Did I expand the options, respect the constraints and follow through? What did the outcome teach without rewriting what I knew then?

Give a specific example from your original and revised work, a strength or limitation you noticed, and one practical safeguard. State what remains uncertain.

My next decision

Choose two safeguards. For each, name the trigger, action, review date and evidence that would show whether it helped. Assess the reasoning and follow-through rather than the pupil’s risk preference, confidence level or willingness to disclose personal information.

Example of an evidence-based reflection

In the first valuation exercise I moved my estimate toward the founder’s number before checking the inputs. Rebuilding it from cash assumptions showed the source of the difference. Next time I will record an independent estimate before viewing a target and retain both versions. One exercise does not establish a permanent trait; I will check whether this safeguard helps across several different cases.

Foundation: Sir Andrew Likierman’s Judgement at Work: Making Better Choices. His six elements are knowledge and experience, awareness, trust, feelings and beliefs, choice and delivery. Our three areas group those elements for investing students; this is an On Judgement teaching adaptation, not Likierman’s published grouping or an endorsed programme.

Likierman · six elements explained by London Business School
Public LBS explanation checked on 1 November 2026. Six elements are attributed to Sir Andrew Likierman; the three-area grouping and investing exercises are On Judgement adaptations, not his published model or an endorsement.

Andrew Likierman · Judgement at Work: Making Better Choices
Publisher book page. The full book has not been reviewed; teaching uses the publicly explained six-element framework with original examples.