Support Overrides Without Erasing History

Keep the recommendation and the decision, so you can find out which was right.

See the situation

Start with the situation below. Next, we will work through an example together before you try the activity.

Maya · Decision designer

The case

A correction counted as a success

Retain the original recommendation alongside an override, its actor, time, and reason. Do not erase the disagreement.

System said: Keep and nurture
Reviewer knew: Mid-acquisition, about to be much larger
Reviewer did: Routed to a seller
Deal: Closed
Six months later the record shows: Route to a seller, counted as the system being right

Your task

Compare the recommendation with the human decision. Record the reason and keep the original history.

Need a little guidance?

You’re done when: The current state is clear without deleting the disagreement that produced it.

Overrides are valuable learning evidence only when history survives.

Need a reminder? Reopen the worked example

Watch one example first

A reviewer retains “nurture” but replaces “low fit” with a documented acquisition exception. Append the new reason with actor and time; do not claim the disposition changed.

Why this follows from the evidence

Recommendation, final decision, and rationale are separate pieces of history. An override can change one without changing all three.

GTM Lab

Saved locally

Review Policy · 0 of 8 sections started

Saved locally to your browser.

Case evidence

A correction counted as a success

System said: Keep and nurture
Reviewer knew: Mid-acquisition, about to be much larger
Reviewer did: Routed to a seller
Deal: Closed
Six months later the record shows: Route to a seller, counted as the system being right

A reviewer knew the company was mid-acquisition and routed it to a seller. The deal closed. Six months later the accuracy review counts this as the system being right.

Review workbench

Record what changed—and what did not

Inspect the original recommendation and later review. Classify the disagreement, select its evidence-based reason, and repair an overwrite that would erase history.

One review, two decisions, a later measurementFollow the example events in time order. No live integration runs here.

System run
Recommendation: keep and nurture
Stored under the original rule version; it is not rewritten by the later reviewer.
Supported
Human review
Reviewer has new context
The company is mid-acquisition; the system did not receive that evidence.
Needs review
After review
Decision: route to a seller
The deal later closed. If the recommendation were overwritten, that result could be misattributed to the system.
Supported

Does this disagreement show a general rule problem or a case-specific exception?

Which reason code records the supplied evidence?

Repair the history behavior

What happens to the current rationale on a new run?

Append-only review receipt · proposed repairCompare the original state with the proposed change. This preview does not change live records.

Append-only review receipt · proposed repair
Item	Before	Proposed	Why
System recommendation	Keep and nurture	Keep and nurture · original system result, unchanged	Preserve what the system actually said for evaluation within the approved retention schedule.
Post-review decision	Not recorded separately	Route to a seller · reviewer decision for this case	The next workflow reads the human-reviewed decision.
Current rationale	Prior run explanation	Choose how the current rationale changes	The current view should describe the latest result; history is stored separately.
Review history	Potentially replaced by latest state	Earlier review record would be overwritten	Append during the defined retention period; deletion and archival still follow policy.

System recommendation: BeforeKeep and nurture; ProposedKeep and nurture · original system result, unchanged; WhyPreserve what the system actually said for evaluation within the approved retention schedule.
Post-review decision: BeforeNot recorded separately; ProposedRoute to a seller · reviewer decision for this case; WhyThe next workflow reads the human-reviewed decision.
Current rationale: BeforePrior run explanation; ProposedChoose how the current rationale changes; WhyThe current view should describe the latest result; history is stored separately.
Review history: BeforePotentially replaced by latest state; ProposedEarlier review record would be overwritten; WhyAppend during the defined retention period; deletion and archival still follow policy.

Changes save in this browser as you work.

Optional: inspect the chapter check choices

Work the case · 0 of 3 sections drafted

Keep what the override overrode

Compare these alternatives one section at a time. Check a choice to see its consequence; the draft summary below keeps the proposed changes together.

Step 1 of 3

What does an override that replaces the recommendation actually cost you?

The ability to act on the correct answer downstreamThe only record that a disagreement happened, which is the highest-value data the system producesThe audit trail of who changed what

This is a proposed draft until the chapter check runs. Selecting a choice alone does not complete the chapter.

2c · Proposed

Review record draft

Review record draft · current draftCompare the original state with the proposed change. This preview does not change live records.

Review record draft · current draft
Item	Before	Proposed	Why
What does an override that replaces the recommendation actually cost you?	No saved change in this exercise draft	Not drafted yet	Choose a proposal to see what it would add to the draft.
Two reason codes look almost the same and the split matters. Which pair?	No saved change in this exercise draft	Not drafted yet	Choose a proposal to see what it would add to the draft.
The current rationale and the history need different retention. Which way round?	No saved change in this exercise draft	Not drafted yet	Choose a proposal to see what it would add to the draft.

What does an override that replaces the recommendation actually cost you?: BeforeNo saved change in this exercise draft; ProposedNot drafted yet; WhyChoose a proposal to see what it would add to the draft.
Two reason codes look almost the same and the split matters. Which pair?: BeforeNo saved change in this exercise draft; ProposedNot drafted yet; WhyChoose a proposal to see what it would add to the draft.
The current rationale and the history need different retention. Which way round?: BeforeNo saved change in this exercise draft; ProposedNot drafted yet; WhyChoose a proposal to see what it would add to the draft.

A choice appears here as a proposal, not as evidence that a live system changed.

Your place saves as you go.

Chapter 6 of 80 complete