This is an excellent summary of how to make decisions, and to continually get better at making them. > and how well convinced we are of what the accuracy based

This is an excellent summary of how to make decisions, and to continually get better at making them. > and how well convinced we are of what the accuracy based on past experience; and how much the deciders knew about last inaccuracies, when deciding to continue a practice. This in particular. How did proceeding this way do in the past? What did we get when we decided to continue with a discrepancy? If the discrepancy did not result in an issue, why? was the information bad, our handling of it, or just chance? If it was an issue, can we avoid overriding it again, can we get better info, can we discard it altogether from consideration? (note: this comment doesn't relate to the content of the article at all, but about the decision-making process outlined above)