After Action Review, AAR
Updated 2026-08-13
INTRODUCTION
English translation pending.
CORE DEFINITION
Developed by the US Army and formalized in training doctrine, the After Action Review is a facilitated discussion held immediately after an event, structured around four questions: what was supposed to happen, what actually happened, why the difference, and what to sustain or improve. The core proposition is that experience becomes knowledge only when the gap between intention and outcome is examined explicitly. The key qualification is psychological safety: if the session assigns fault, participants report outcomes that protect themselves, and the learning content disappears.
SCAFFOLDING EFFECT
Reduce cognitive load
- Gap analysis: place intended outcome beside actual outcome and name the difference precisely. - Cause probe: ask why the divergence occurred without asking who caused it. - Transfer step: extract one rule you will apply in the next comparable situation.
Anchor fast decisions
Memory of an event is dominated by its outcome, so people reconstruct their original reasoning to fit what happened and lose the counterfactual. Running the four questions immediately, while the plan and the surprise are both fresh, preserves the gap that carries the lesson. Separating the person from the decision lowers the cost of admitting error, which increases the accuracy of what gets reported. Repeating the cycle across many events turns individual experience into shared practice.
MINIMUM ACTION
In progress 0/1Practice this model in one real situation:
account_treeGenealogyexpand_more
menu_bookReferencesexpand_more
Source support: Explicit
- en.wikipedia.orghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After-action_reviewverified
PRIVATE NOTES · Only visible to you
SAVED Q&A
ENTRY Q&A · Private saving available
Ask with a clear boundary
thinkingmodels answers from published entry context only.
Your question is sent to thinkingmodels. The answer uses public entry context only.
RELATED MODELS