90-Day Cognitive Biases Protocol - HiPerformance Culture

How this programme adapts

Once a week, the player runs a short check-in and reads the week you actually logged — not the week the plan assumed. Every check-in lands on one of the adjustments below. These are the engine's own rules, rendered word for word.

Build consistency first
Your practice this week was sparse. Hold the structure exactly and focus on logging decisions daily before adding any new techniques.
Strengthen your catch log
Your catch count is low relative to your logging frequency. Add 5 minutes each day to review your log entries and tag any decision where a bias check could apply.
Consistent practice
Your practice is strong this week. Reduce daily review by 5 minutes and focus on depth for one caught instance rather than scanning for volume.
On track
Your practice is in the normal range. This week continues the current structure and layers in the next scheduled check.

Pattern insights are gated behind your own record: the first unlocks after 4 logged days, and every insight states the evidence it stands on. Milestone reviews at day 30, day 60, day 90 read your whole record and choose their coaching from it.

The 90-day programme map

Every day of the programme, in full — the same steps the interactive player walks you through. Expand a module to read its days. Modules have different lengths; their day ranges define the programme.

Month 1 — Foundation · Days 1–30

Map your five target biases and establish your decision journal and core checking habits

Module 1Decision AuditDays 1–7

Day 1 · Start Your Decision Log 15 min

Biases are features of normal cognition, not flaws to be cured. This programme builds decision procedures that catch them at the moment they matter, not a bias-free mind. Today you begin the one anchor that runs through all 90 days: your decision log. Five minutes of structured notation each evening is the foundation of every check this programme adds.

Open a dedicated notebook or app for your decision log and record today's date, plus one decision you faced today, however small
Write a one-sentence answer to this question: What is the last decision I regret? Do not analyse it, just record it
Read the programme outline for this week: you are mapping five bias patterns over 30 days, then building one procedure for each

Day 2 · Install the Pause 10 min

Before most decisions are made, a judgement is already forming in the background. The pause habit gives your deliberate attention a chance to check that judgement before acting on it. You are installing one brief moment of friction, not a full analysis, just a named check.

Before any significant decision today, pause, name the type of decision out loud or in writing, and ask: what could I be missing here?
In your decision log tonight, note one moment the pause felt hardest and one word describing the pressure you felt

Day 3 · Map Your Decision Landscape 15 min

This week is a decision audit: observation before intervention. Before you can catch biases in action, you need a picture of the territory. What kinds of decisions fill your week, and which ones carry the most consequence? Reversible decisions need less checking than irreversible ones.

List the five most consequential decisions you face regularly at work, home, or in planning. Mark each as reversible or irreversible
In your decision log, note which of these five categories feels most stressful. That category is where the procedures will matter most

Day 4 · Notice What You Notice 10 min

One marker of the availability heuristic is noticing that one type of information feels more real or urgent than another, simply because it comes to mind easily. Today you observe rather than intervene. What kinds of evidence do you find most compelling when making decisions? The goal this audit week is description, not change.

In your decision log, complete this sentence: When I make decisions, I tend to weight information that... (complete in one or two sentences)
Identify one current decision where you are relying mainly on what came to mind first rather than a systematic search

Day 5 · Frequency and Salience 10 min

Availability bias often leads people to overweight events that are vivid and memorable rather than statistically common. An air crash makes the news; car accidents are background noise. This audit week you are learning to recognise when salience is driving your frequency estimates, not actual data.

Pick one risk or possibility you currently find particularly salient. Ask: how often does this actually happen? Note whether you can find a base-rate figure to check against your intuition
Record one example from today where what you remembered easily felt more important than it may statistically be

Day 6 · Five-Day Observations 10 min

You have been running the decision log for five days and the pause habit for four. Today is the first brief review. Small observations at this audit stage are data points, not verdicts. You are building a baseline picture of your own decision patterns.

Reread your decision log entries from days 1 through 5. Note one pattern, however tentative: what kinds of decisions appear most often?
Rate the pause habit on a scale of 1 to 5 for consistency so far. Note any recurring reason you skipped it

Day 7 · Audit Week Complete 10 min

Week 1 ends today. You have your decision log running, the pause habit installed, and a starting picture of your decision landscape. Next week you focus specifically on the availability heuristic. The programme introduces one new habit each week from here, building on the foundation you have just established.

In your decision log, write one sentence describing what you most want to catch over the next 90 days
Review your week 1 entries and note one thing that surprised you about your own decision patterns
If your log has fewer than 3 catches this week, use today for a real-time 20-minute catch drill on your last major decision

Module 2Availability HeuristicDays 8–14

Day 8 · The Availability Audit 10 min

This week your target is the availability heuristic: the tendency to judge probability and frequency by how easily examples come to mind. Today you add a structured check specifically for this. The availability audit habit applies whenever you are forming a high-stakes belief about how likely something is.

Before any high-stakes judgement about how likely something is, ask: am I using actual data, or just what comes to mind most easily?
In your decision log, identify one current belief about the likelihood of something. Rate your confidence and note what evidence is driving that confidence

Day 9 · Vivid vs. Representative 10 min

A vivid example, a story heard recently, or a dramatic news account can feel more informative than it is. Today you separate vividness from representativeness. For each striking example you remember, the availability audit asks whether that example is typical of the actual distribution of outcomes.

Pick one vivid example that has shaped a current belief or concern. Ask: is this example typical of the category, or just memorable? Record the distinction in your log
Find one frequency or probability claim in your daily information environment. Note whether you can find a base-rate figure to compare it against

Day 10 · Media and Salience 10 min

News and social media systematically oversample rare, dramatic, and emotionally charged events. The information environment that shapes your availability heuristic is not a representative sample of reality. Noting this does not mean ignoring the news. It means flagging when a story is making something feel more probable than base rates suggest.

Identify one news story or social media trend from this week that may be distorting your sense of how common something is. Note it in your decision log with the question: how representative is this story of the broader category?
Write a one-line availability audit for that story: where would you find the actual base rate for this type of event?

Day 11 · Your Availability Checklist 15 min

Turning the availability check into a short card makes it faster to run in the moment. Today you build a three-question checklist tailored to your own decision context. Checklists externalise the procedure so it does not depend on memory or motivation at the moment of decision.

In your decision log, draft a 3-question availability check card: (1) What evidence am I using? (2) How did this evidence come to my attention? (3) What base-rate information have I not yet checked?
Test the card on one current belief and record the result

Day 12 · Finding Base Rates 15 min

A base rate is the background frequency of an event in a reference class. Base rates feel abstract compared to a vivid story, but they are often more informative for forecasting. Today you practise locating base-rate information for one real current decision.

For one current decision where likelihood matters, identify the appropriate reference class: what category does this belong to, and what is the typical frequency of this outcome in that category?
Search for one base-rate statistic relevant to that decision. Note in your log where you found it and how it compares to your intuitive estimate

Day 13 · Reframing with Data 10 min

Once you have a base rate, the task is to let it influence your estimate without completely overriding relevant specific information. Today you practise weighting base-rate information alongside the vivid example you have been carrying, arriving at a more considered position.

Return to the belief you identified on day 12. Write a revised estimate that gives weight to both your intuitive sense and the base-rate data. Note how much the base rate shifted your estimate, even if only slightly
In your log, note: what would it have taken for me to find this base-rate data before starting this programme?

Day 14 · Availability Week Review 10 min

Two weeks in. Your journal has entries from 14 days of practice. Today is a brief review of the availability heuristic work before you move into confirmation bias next week. The goal is not to judge yourself, just to build a realistic picture of where the check is sticking and where it slips.

Review your availability-related entries from days 8 through 13. Note one instance where the audit changed your initial estimate, and one where you did not run the check and later wished you had
Write one sentence in your log: the availability context where I am most vulnerable is...
If your log has fewer than 3 catches this week, use today for a real-time 20-minute catch drill on your last major decision

Module 3Confirmation BiasDays 15–21

Day 15 · The Counter-Evidence Habit 10 min

Confirmation bias is the tendency to seek, notice, and recall information that supports a prior belief while underweighting contrary evidence. It operates across most domains of reasoning. This week your work shifts to the counter-evidence habit, a structured check that asks for at least one piece of disconfirming information before acting on a belief.

For any belief you plan to act on today, write down at least one piece of evidence that points against it
Pick one belief you currently hold with high confidence. In your decision log, record two pieces of evidence for it and at least one piece of evidence against it

Day 16 · The Steelman 15 min

A steelman argument is the strongest version of the position opposite to the one you hold. Building a steelman is harder than dismissing a weak version of the opposing view, because it requires genuinely engaging with the best case against your own position. Today you practise this form of counter-evidence work.

Pick one belief or decision you feel confident about. Write the strongest argument you can construct for the opposite conclusion, in two or three sentences
In your decision log, rate how hard you found it to steelman the opposite position on a scale of 1 to 5. Difficulty is a useful signal for how much confirmation bias may be operating

Day 17 · Information Diet Audit 15 min

Confirmation bias operates partly through selective information exposure: the sources we consult tend to confirm what we already believe. A brief audit of your main information sources reveals whether you are systematically avoiding certain perspectives. This is a pattern observation, not a directive to consume everything.

List your three main information sources for one important domain, whether news, professional knowledge, or personal advice. Rate each on a 1 to 5 scale for how often they challenge your existing views rather than confirm them
Note one information source you have avoided or dismissed recently and record the reason you gave yourself

Day 18 · The Conditional Check 10 min

A useful self-check for confirmation bias is the question: what evidence would change my mind? If you cannot name specific conditions that would update a belief, that is a signal the belief may be held on grounds other than evidence. Today you apply this check to one current conviction.

For one belief you plan to act on this week, complete in your decision log: I would change my mind about this if...
Rate how easy it was to complete that sentence on a scale of 1 to 5. Record one word that captures the feeling

Day 19 · Confirming vs. Disconfirming 15 min

Research on conditional reasoning shows that most people naturally search for confirming rather than disconfirming evidence, even in abstract settings. Today you run a brief personal exercise to observe your own pattern before returning to real decisions.

In your decision log, write a rule you believe to be true about your own performance or behaviour. Then write two types of evidence: the kind that would confirm it, and the kind that would disconfirm it. Note which type you would more naturally search for
Apply this to one current decision: what kind of evidence am I naturally seeking out, and what kind am I avoiding?

Day 20 · The Contrary Column 10 min

Your decision log has been running for three weeks. Adding a column for contrary evidence creates a visible record of disconfirming information, making it easier to review whether you have genuinely searched for both sides or only documented the confirming case.

Add a contrary evidence column to your decision log entries going forward. Go back to one existing entry and add a contrary evidence note
For one decision you are currently sitting on, fill in both the confirming and contrary evidence columns honestly

Day 21 · Confirmation Bias Week Review 10 min

Week 3 ends today. Confirmation bias is the most pervasive of the five patterns this programme addresses. The counter-evidence habit is a lifetime practice, not a one-week fix. Today you take stock of where it is landing and what resistance you notice.

Review your week 3 entries. Note one moment where the counter-evidence habit shifted what you noticed, and one moment where it was difficult to apply
Write one sentence completing: the domain where I find counter-evidence hardest to accept is...
If your log has fewer than 3 catches this week, use today for a real-time 20-minute catch drill on your last major decision

Module 4Anchoring AwarenessDays 22–30

Day 22 · Write Your Own Estimate First 10 min

Anchoring happens when an initial number or reference point pulls your estimate toward it, even when the anchor is arbitrary or irrelevant. The most robust procedural countermeasure is simple: form your own estimate before consulting any external figure. Today you install this as a standing habit for this week and beyond.

Before checking any price, forecast, salary figure, or external estimate for a decision, write your own estimate first
Apply this today to one real number you need: write your estimate first, then check the external figure, and note the gap in your log

Day 23 · The Anchor in Action 10 min

Today you observe anchoring at work in a low-stakes setting to build pattern recognition. Anchors appear in price tags, opening offers in negotiation, first figures presented in reports, and any situation where one number precedes your own judgement. Spotting them in familiar settings sharpens your detection.

Identify one anchor you encountered today: a price, a number in a meeting, or an estimate someone offered first. Write it in your log and note your initial reaction to it
Ask: if the anchor had been higher, would my final estimate have been higher? If yes, the anchor was operating. Record your answer

Day 24 · Anchoring in Negotiation 15 min

In negotiation contexts, the first number offered often has disproportionate influence on the final outcome. The pre-anchor self-estimate habit applies here directly: setting your own target before any negotiation begins protects against being pulled entirely by the other party's opening figure.

Before any upcoming negotiation or comparison involving numbers, write your own target or estimate in your decision log before the other party speaks or before you see their initial offer
After the interaction, note how close the final outcome was to your own estimate versus the opening anchor

Day 25 · Consider the Opposite for Anchors 10 min

One technique for partially correcting an anchor is to deliberately consider the extreme opposite: ask why the anchor might be dramatically wrong in the other direction. This activates different knowledge in memory and can shift the final estimate back toward a more considered range.

For the anchor you identified on day 23, generate the opposing extreme: write the strongest case for why the anchor is wrong in the other direction. Note whether this shifts your estimate
Apply the consider-the-opposite step to one current estimate where an anchor may be operating

Day 26 · Multiple Reference Points 10 min

Using a single anchor is more distorting than using several independent reference points. Seeking multiple reference points before settling on an estimate is standard practice in forecasting and valuation. Today you practise building a short reference set before forming a final estimate.

For one decision this week that involves a numerical estimate, identify at least three independent reference points or comparisons. Note them in your log before deciding on your final estimate
Compare your final estimate to each reference point. Note whether your estimate sat closer to any one anchor than the others

Day 27 · Anchor Audit 15 min

Today you look back at recent decisions for anchors you may have accepted without noticing. Retrospective audits of this type build pattern recognition for future instances. You are looking for the moments when a number arrived before your judgement formed.

Review your decision log from the past week. Identify two or three entries where a number or reference point was presented before you formed your own estimate. Note whether you challenged or accepted it
Pick one past decision where an anchor may have pulled your estimate. Write one sentence describing the anchor and its likely direction of pull

Day 28 · Anchoring in Formal Contexts 10 min

Performance reviews, project budgets, salary proposals, and benchmark reports all contain anchors embedded in their format. The first figure in any formal document can function as an anchor before you have formed your own view. Today you apply the pre-anchor habit to a formal context.

Before reading or preparing any formal document that contains numerical estimates this week, form your own view of the key figures in advance and note it in your log
After reviewing the document, note which figures functioned as anchors and whether your pre-formed estimate provided any protection against them

Day 29 · Framing and Anchoring 10 min

Anchors appear not only in explicit numbers but also in how information is framed. Describing the same product or situation with a different starting point shifts the estimate. Today you look at how framing functions as an anchor in your own communications and documents.

Review one piece of communication you sent or received this week that contained a numerical framing. Note what anchor it sets and in which direction
Rewrite one sentence from that communication using a neutral frame that does not privilege one anchor over another. Note the difference

Day 30 · Month 1 Complete 15 min

Day 30. The Foundation month is done. You have five habits running: the decision log, the pause, the availability audit, the counter-evidence habit, and the pre-anchor estimate. None of these checks is perfect and none was designed to be. The goal was a structured procedure at each of the five major bias points. Month 2 builds the remaining two pillars and adds three more techniques.

Review your decision log from the past 30 days. Count the total number of bias-related catches you logged and record the count
Write one sentence noting which of the five bias checks you found easiest to run consistently, and which felt most effortful
Set one intention for Month 2 in your log
Review your log for this month. Tag every entry with the bias most active and note whether more than one bias was present in any single decision

Month 2 — Optimisation · Days 31–60

Build structured procedures for each bias type and practise calibration and consider-the-opposite techniques

Module 5Sunk Cost RecognitionDays 31–37

Day 31 · The Sunk-Cost Reset Question 10 min

The sunk-cost fallacy is the tendency to continue investing in a failing course of action because of prior irrecoverable investment. Money already spent, time already committed, and effort already made cannot be recovered regardless of the next decision. This week your new habit is a reset question that separates past from future.

When evaluating whether to continue any significant commitment, ask: If I were starting this fresh today, knowing what I know now, would I still choose this path?
In your decision log, apply this question to one current commitment. Record your honest answer, including any discomfort the question surfaces

Day 32 · Escalation of Commitment 10 min

Escalation of commitment is the tendency to increase investment in a failing project rather than acknowledge the initial decision was wrong. This pattern appears in projects, relationships, careers, and financial commitments. Recognising it early is easier than reversing a long escalation spiral.

Identify one ongoing project or commitment where you have increased your investment over time despite disappointing results. Describe it briefly in your decision log
Apply the sunk-cost reset question to it. Note your response and any reasoning that pushes back against withdrawing

Day 33 · The Concorde Problem 10 min

The Concorde supersonic aircraft became a classic case study in sunk-cost reasoning: development continued partly because of the investment already made, regardless of the economic case going forward. Today you apply this lens to one of your own ongoing commitments.

Find one commitment in your decision log where the main reason for continuing is not future value but the investment already made. Record it
Write the future-only case: if you were evaluating this commitment purely on its future prospects, with no prior history, what would you decide?

Day 34 · Future-Only Evaluation 15 min

The standard prescription for sunk-cost bias is to evaluate decisions on future costs and benefits only, treating past investment as background that does not change the future payoff. This requires deliberately separating what has been spent from what will be gained. Today you practise this separation with a structured log entry.

For one current decision, write two columns in your decision log: Column 1 lists all past investments as sunk costs. Column 2 lists all future costs and benefits only. Evaluate the decision using column 2 alone
Note whether the column 2 evaluation leads to a different conclusion than your initial position

Day 35 · Loss Aversion and the Sunk Cost 10 min

Sunk-cost reasoning is partly fuelled by loss aversion: the prior investment sits in a mental account, and stopping feels like confirming a loss. Understanding this connection helps you recognise when loss aversion is masquerading as persistence or commitment in your own thinking.

In your decision log, describe one instance where what felt like commitment or persistence was in part driven by not wanting to admit a loss. Use your own words
Write the loss-aversion translation: what specific loss is the sunk-cost reasoning protecting you from feeling?

Day 36 · Exit Criteria in Advance 15 min

Setting exit criteria in advance is a procedural countermeasure for escalation: before the pressure to continue builds, you define the specific conditions that would trigger a stop. Putting these criteria in writing before you are under pressure removes some of the emotional weight from the moment of decision.

For one active commitment, write your exit criteria in your decision log: what specific outcome or threshold, if observed, would tell you to stop? Be as concrete as possible
Date the entry and set a reminder to review it at the threshold you named

Day 37 · Sunk Cost Week Review 10 min

Week 5 complete. The sunk-cost reset question is now part of your habit stack. This habit tends to be hardest to apply to the commitments you are most emotionally invested in, which is exactly where it matters most. Today you review where it landed this week.

Review your week 5 entries. Note one moment where the reset question prompted genuine reconsideration, and one moment where it was easy to ask but hard to act on
Write one sentence: the commitment type where sunk-cost reasoning appears most strongly for me is...
If your log has fewer than 3 catches this week, use today for a real-time 20-minute catch drill on your last major decision

Module 6Overconfidence and CalibrationDays 38–44

Day 38 · State Estimates as Ranges 10 min

Overconfidence is a bias in estimation: people tend to state conclusions with more certainty than the evidence supports. This week your work focuses on catching overconfidence at the moment of judgement rather than building a separate calibration practice. The most direct catch is replacing point estimates with ranges. Stating a range makes the uncertainty that is already present explicit, rather than suppressing it behind a single figure that projects false precision.

For any forecast or estimate in your decision log or daily work, express it as a range rather than a single point
Take one estimate you have made recently and restate it as a 90 per cent confidence interval: a low end you would be surprised to fall below, and a high end you would be surprised to exceed. Record it in your log

Day 39 · Calibration Baseline 20 min

Overconfidence is often invisible until you observe it in action. A short diagnostic reveals whether your stated certainty matches your actual accuracy. Today you run this once as a bias-detection exercise, not as the start of an ongoing calibration programme. The exercise shows the direction and degree of your overconfidence so you know where the bias is operating.

In your decision log, write five factual questions with numerical answers and give a 90 per cent confidence interval for each. Look up the answers and count how many your intervals contained. Record your hit rate
Reflect: were your intervals too narrow, about right, or too wide? Note the direction of any overconfidence you observe

Day 40 · Planning Fallacy Check 15 min

The planning fallacy is the tendency to underestimate how long a task will take, or overestimate the resources a project will deliver. It is a form of overconfidence in the inside view, relying on best-case thinking rather than the typical outcome for this type of project. Today you apply an outside-view check to one current plan.

Pick a current project or task with a time estimate. Apply the outside view: how long do similar projects typically take? Find or estimate a reference class completion rate and compare it to your current estimate. Note the difference in your log
Revise your estimate to weight the outside view more heavily. Note any resistance you feel to doing so

Day 41 · Reference Class Forecasting 15 min

Reference class forecasting uses the base rate of outcomes for a comparison class of similar projects or situations to anchor predictions. It is a deliberate outside-view technique that counteracts optimism bias and the planning fallacy. Today you practise identifying the right reference class for one current forecast.

For one estimate or plan you are working with, identify the reference class: what category of project, decision, or event is this most similar to? What is the typical outcome range for that class? Write it in your log
Blend your inside-view estimate with the reference class outcome range. Note the resulting adjusted estimate

Day 42 · Your Prediction Log 10 min

Noting predictions with a confidence range and a check-in date is a useful catch for overconfidence: it creates a record you can return to rather than letting confident claims go untested. Today you record three current predictions in your regular decision log using that format. Readers who want a full calibration-training programme with feedback loops and scoring should follow the Probabilistic Thinking protocol, which covers that in depth.

In your regular decision log, record three predictions you are currently making with: the prediction, your confidence level as a range, and a date to check back. No separate section is needed; this format is your ongoing overconfidence catch
Review any predictions you made before starting this programme. How many were accurate? Were you ever confident and wrong? Note the pattern

Day 43 · Domain-Specific Overconfidence 10 min

Overconfidence is not uniform. The research shows it varies by task difficulty and domain familiarity. People are often well-calibrated in areas where feedback is fast and clear, and poorly calibrated where feedback is slow or ambiguous. Today you map your own domain profile.

In your decision log, list three domains where you make regular predictions or estimates. Rate your likely calibration in each on a 1 to 5 scale, based on how reliable and fast the feedback is in that domain
Note the domain where you receive the least feedback on your predictions. That is your highest-risk overconfidence area

Day 44 · Calibration Week Review 10 min

Week 6 done. The range-estimate habit is now part of your stack. This week's focus was overconfidence as a bias to catch, not calibration as a separate programme to build. For readers who want the full prediction-feedback cycle with scoring and domain tracking, the Probabilistic Thinking protocol covers that in depth.

Review your week 6 entries. Note one estimate where the range habit changed how you communicated your confidence, and one instance where you still defaulted to a point estimate
Write one sentence: the context where I most need to resist stating estimates as single points is...
If your log has fewer than 3 catches this week, use today for a real-time 20-minute catch drill on your last major decision

Module 7Consider the OppositeDays 45–51

Day 45 · Consider the Opposite 10 min

Consider-the-opposite is one of the most studied debiasing techniques. Research shows it helps counteract anchoring, and the approach extends to most types of biased judgement. For any significant decision, generating reasons why the opposite conclusion might be correct activates a different reasoning pathway. Today you install this as a standing habit.

For any important decision or belief you are about to act on, generate at least one reason the opposite might be true or at least worth considering
Apply this to one current decision today. Write the consider-the-opposite case in your log, even briefly

Day 46 · The Devil's Advocate 15 min

In group decisions, one useful institutional form of consider-the-opposite is assigning a devil's advocate role: someone whose explicit job is to find the strongest case against the proposed decision. Today you apply this structure to a group context, or simulate it alone if you are deciding individually.

For one upcoming group decision or meeting where a proposal is likely to be accepted, plan to raise one devil's advocate challenge. Write it in advance in your decision log
If working alone, write a short devil's advocate brief against your own current preferred course of action on a significant decision

Day 47 · Two Scenarios 15 min

Generating both a best-case and a worst-case scenario for a significant decision forces you to consider outcomes you might otherwise screen out. This is not pessimism but structured imagination, a deliberate expansion of the outcome space your decision accounts for.

For one significant decision you are currently facing, write a two-sentence best-case scenario and a two-sentence worst-case scenario in your decision log
Note which scenario felt easier to write. Ease often signals which direction your motivated reasoning is pulling

Day 48 · Motivated Reasoning Check 10 min

Motivated reasoning is reasoning in service of a conclusion you already want. It is related to confirmation bias but more specific: you are not just favouring confirming evidence, you are constructing arguments toward a pre-set conclusion. The check is to ask whether you are finding reasons or building a case.

In your decision log, examine one decision you are currently leaning toward. Complete this sentence: The main reason I want this conclusion is... Then ask whether that motivation is also driving your reading of the evidence
Apply consider-the-opposite to that motivation: write one sentence about what you might be missing because of it

Day 49 · Applying Consider the Opposite 10 min

You have been building up to this: applying consider-the-opposite with all the context from the first seven weeks of work. Today you use it together with two earlier checks on one real current decision, running the three procedures in sequence.

Pick one significant current decision. Apply three checks in sequence in your log: (1) What evidence am I not looking for? (2) Is anything about this situation particularly salient versus statistically common? (3) What is the strongest case for the opposite conclusion?
Note whether any of the three checks changed your view

Day 50 · The Outside Observer 10 min

A perspective-taking technique asks: what would a neutral outside observer say about this decision? The outside observer has no emotional stake in either the investment already made or the desired outcome. This is sometimes called the view from outside the situation rather than from inside it.

Apply the outside observer frame to one current decision. Write two or three sentences in your log describing what a neutral outside person would notice about how you are approaching it
Note one difference between your own view and the outside observer's view you just wrote

Day 51 · Week 7 Review 10 min

Seven weeks complete. You now have eight habits running: the decision log, the pause, the availability audit, the counter-evidence habit, the pre-anchor estimate, the sunk-cost reset question, the range estimate habit, and the consider-the-opposite check. Month 2 ends this week. The final Optimisation week adds procedural structure around all of these.

List your eight habits in your log. Rate each on a 1 to 5 scale for how consistently you are running it. Note which is weakest
Write one sentence about what surprised you most about the consider-the-opposite week
If your log has fewer than 3 catches this week, use today for a real-time 20-minute catch drill on your last major decision

Module 8Decision ProceduresDays 52–60

Day 52 · The Pre-Mortem 10 min

A pre-mortem is a structured prospective technique: before committing to a significant decision, you imagine it has already been implemented and failed, then work backwards to identify the most plausible causes of that failure. It is a systematic way of activating information you would otherwise suppress under optimism. Today you add this as a standing habit.

Before committing to any significant decision, write one sentence in your log imagining it has already failed, and one likely cause of that failure
Apply the pre-mortem to one current decision today. Write two to three sentences

Day 53 · The Full Pre-Mortem Drill 20 min

A fuller pre-mortem exercise generates a list of plausible failure modes rather than just one. The list often surfaces concerns that were not visible in the planning phase. Today you run a full pre-mortem on one significant current commitment.

For one significant current decision or project, run a five-minute pre-mortem: write as many plausible failure modes as you can think of without filtering. Aim for at least five specific causes
Review the list and pick the two most credible failure modes. Note what, if anything, you could do to reduce their likelihood

Day 54 · Building a Decision Checklist 20 min

Checklists are reliable, low-cost tools for applying consistent procedure to decisions that arise repeatedly. Today you build a short bias-audit checklist tailored to your most common high-stakes decision type. The checklist is only useful if it is short enough to actually run in the time available.

Identify the one decision type you face most often that carries significant consequences. List the five bias checks that apply most to that decision type. Write them as a short checklist card in your log
Run the checklist on one actual decision of that type. Note whether any check surfaced something new

Day 55 · The 10-10-10 Frame 10 min

The 10-10-10 frame asks three time-horizon questions about any significant decision: how will I feel about this in 10 minutes, in 10 months, and in 10 years? This structure helps distinguish decisions that feel urgent now from those that genuinely matter long-term.

Apply the 10-10-10 frame to one current decision in your log. Write one sentence for each time horizon
Note which time horizon is currently driving your sense of urgency about the decision

Day 56 · Signal vs. Noise 10 min

Many poor decisions are driven by noise: irrelevant variation in how information is presented, or variation in your own state when you encounter it. Separating signal from noise involves asking: if I received this information again in different circumstances, would I make the same decision?

For one current decision, list in your log what is signal (relevant to the actual choice) and what might be noise (framing, your current state, a recently vivid example)
Ask: if the noise factors were removed, would my decision be any different? Record your answer

Day 57 · Month 2 Calibration Review 20 min

You started a prediction log in week 6. Today you review any predictions from the past month that can now be assessed. Early in a calibration practice, do not expect your hit rate to look impressive. The baseline is the useful data point.

Review your prediction log entries from the past two weeks. For any that can now be evaluated, note whether your confidence interval contained the actual outcome
Note your overall hit rate for the period. Was it above, below, or near the confidence level you stated? Record the direction of any systematic error

Day 58 · Stacking the Tools 20 min

You have nine habits running and a growing toolkit of one-off techniques. Today you practise combining multiple tools on one decision to see how they interact and whether any finding from one check is sharpened by another.

Pick one significant decision you are currently sitting on. Run the full stack in sequence in your log: availability audit, counter-evidence, pre-anchor estimate, sunk-cost check, range estimate, consider-the-opposite, pre-mortem. Note each step
Write two sentences summarising what the combined pass added that a single check would not have

Day 59 · Your Bias Profile Emerging 15 min

After two months of structured practice, patterns are becoming visible. Some biases appear more frequently in your logs than others. Some checks are harder for you to run consistently. Today you sketch a first draft of your own bias profile based on the evidence in your log.

Review your decision log from days 1 through 58. Tally the number of times each of the five bias types appeared in your entries: availability, confirmation, anchoring, sunk cost, and overconfidence. Write the rough distribution
Note which bias type you have logged most often. That is likely your highest-frequency pattern in this context

Day 60 · Month 2 Complete 15 min

Day 60. The Optimisation phase is done. You have a complete decision procedure stack: nine habits, multiple one-off tools, a prediction log, a checklist for your most common decision type, and two months of journal evidence about your own bias patterns. Month 3 takes this into personalisation and system-level integration.

In your decision log, write a one-paragraph Month 2 review: what changed in your decision practice compared to day 31, and what remains the hardest to do
Set one priority for Month 3: what single aspect of your procedure would have the most impact if it became more consistent?

Month 3 — Mastery · Days 61–90

Integrate all procedures into a personal decision protocol and refine through review and personalisation

Module 9IntegrationDays 61–67

Day 61 · Weekly Bias Pattern Review 15 min

Month 3 begins. This week you shift from learning individual techniques to integrating them into a review practice that makes patterns visible over time. Today you add the final habit: a weekly bias pattern review at the end of each week. This is where the learning from individual days compounds.

At the end of each week, spend ten minutes reviewing your decision log entries for the week and note one recurring bias pattern and one moment where a check caught something
Run the first full weekly bias pattern review now, covering the past seven days

Day 62 · The Integrated Audit Card 20 min

You have been running multiple individual checks. This week you consolidate them into a single one-page audit card covering all five bias checks in a sequence short enough to run in under five minutes. The goal is a card you would actually use on consequential decisions going forward.

In your decision log, write your personal bias audit card. It should cover five bias checks in one sentence each, ordered from fastest to most effortful. Keep the whole card under 200 words
Apply the draft card to one decision today and time how long it takes. Note any steps you want to revise

Day 63 · Confirmation Bias in Groups 15 min

Confirmation bias does not disappear in group settings. Groups can amplify it through shared information pools and social pressure to converge on the dominant view. Today you revisit confirmation bias through the lens of team and group decision-making.

Think of one group or team decision from the past month. In your log, note what information was shared freely versus what was not raised. Note any pattern in which views were challenged and which were left unchallenged
Plan one action you could take in an upcoming group setting to surface contrary evidence that might otherwise be suppressed

Day 64 · Advanced Anchoring Practice 15 min

Your pre-anchor self-estimate habit has been running for six weeks. Today you apply it in a more complex context: a multi-variable decision where multiple anchors may be operating simultaneously. Each numerical input to a complex decision can function as an independent anchor.

Identify one current complex decision with multiple numerical inputs. Before reviewing anyone else's figures, write your own estimates for each variable in your log
After reviewing external figures, note which variables showed the widest gap between your estimate and the external anchor. Those are your highest-risk anchor points in this domain

Day 65 · Sunk Cost in Long Commitments 15 min

Sunk-cost reasoning appears in some of the most important long-term decisions: career paths, relationships, living situations, and business ventures. The longer a commitment has been running, the more prior investment accumulates and the harder the reset question becomes. Today you apply it to a long-term context.

Apply the sunk-cost reset question to one long-term commitment that has been running for over a year: if you were starting fresh today, knowing everything you know, would you choose this path? Write the honest answer in your log
Note any difference between your answer when considering only future value versus your response when considering the full history of investment

Day 66 · Probabilistic Calibration 20 min

You have been stating confidence as ranges. A further step is to express confidence as explicit probability estimates for specific outcomes. Probability expressions force a clearer commitment to your actual uncertainty, making later feedback more informative.

For one significant upcoming decision, state your expected outcome as a probability distribution: assign likelihood estimates to three possible outcome scenarios, a best case, a most likely case, and a worst case. Note them in your log
Compare your scenario estimates to any base-rate information you can locate for similar decisions. Adjust if the base rate differs substantially

Day 67 · Week 9 Review 10 min

Week 9 complete. You have run the integrated audit card, revisited all five bias types in their group and long-term contexts, and the weekly pattern review is now a standing habit. This Integration week's theme was using the tools together rather than in isolation.

Run your weekly bias pattern review for week 9. Note one instance where combining two checks surfaced something neither would have caught alone
Write one sentence: the most valuable pairing of checks for my typical decisions appears to be...

Module 10PersonalisationDays 68–74

Day 68 · Your Availability Profile 15 min

Everyone has different availability triggers: the categories of event you tend to overweight because they are vivid, emotionally charged, or recently experienced. This Personalisation week is about sharpening your picture of your own patterns. Building your own availability profile is more useful than a generic description of the bias.

In your decision log, list three categories of event or risk that you tend to notice quickly and weight heavily. For each, note whether this reflects a genuine frequency or a salience effect
List one category you may be systematically underweighting because examples come to mind slowly, and note what would give you a better base-rate estimate of its actual frequency

Day 69 · Your Confirmation Blind Spots 15 min

Two months of counter-evidence practice reveals where confirmation bias is most stubborn for you personally. The blind spots are usually in domains where you have strong pre-existing beliefs, high emotional stakes, or social identity tied to a particular view.

Review your decision log for confirmation-related entries. Identify the two or three domains where you found it hardest to apply the counter-evidence habit. Note them
For the domain that appears most often, write the most credible contrary argument you can construct. Rate how much it moved your view on a 1 to 5 scale

Day 70 · Your Anchoring Vulnerabilities 15 min

Different people are more susceptible to anchoring in different domains: some in financial estimates, some in time planning, some in social comparisons. Today you map your personal anchoring profile based on two months of decision log evidence.

Review your anchoring-related entries from weeks 4 and 9. Identify the two or three decision categories where you most often found an external anchor pulling your estimate. Note the pattern
For your highest-risk anchoring domain, write a personalised version of the pre-anchor habit: what specific step would you take before encountering external figures in that domain?

Day 71 · Your Sunk Cost Triggers 15 min

Some investment types are harder to walk away from than others. For some people it is time invested; for others, public commitment; for others, financial outlay. Knowing your personal sunk-cost trigger helps you apply the reset question more deliberately in the moments it is hardest.

Review your sunk-cost entries from weeks 5 and 9. What type of investment appears most often in your commitment-continuation patterns: time, money, public commitment, effort, or emotional investment? Note the pattern
Write a personalised sunk-cost prompt for your highest-trigger type: one sentence you would say to yourself when that type of investment is making it hard to exit

Day 72 · Your Calibration Profile 15 min

Your prediction log now has four weeks of entries. Today you review it for calibration patterns across domains. The goal is to identify where your stated confidence systematically diverges from your actual accuracy.

Review all prediction log entries that can now be evaluated. For each domain, compare the ratio of correct predictions to total predictions at your stated confidence level. Note the results
Identify your best-calibrated domain and your most poorly calibrated domain. Note both in your log

Day 73 · Your Personal Decision Protocol 25 min

This Personalisation week you begin drafting your personal decision protocol: a short document describing the procedure you will apply to consequential decisions after day 90. It draws on your bias profile, your audit card, your exit criteria practice, and your prediction log structure. Today you write a first draft.

In your decision log, write a first draft of your personal decision protocol covering: your highest-frequency biases, the three most useful checks for your decision context, and your prediction log format. Keep it to one page
Note any check that you included in the draft but have not yet made consistent in practice

Day 74 · Week 10 Review 10 min

Week 10 done. The Personalisation week sharpened your picture of your own bias profile. The personal decision protocol draft is now on paper. This week's theme was moving from generic techniques to a practice tailored to your specific patterns.

Run your weekly bias pattern review for week 10. Note one finding from the personalisation work that surprised you
Review your personal decision protocol draft and note one revision you want to make based on this week's work

Module 11System DesignDays 75–81

Day 75 · Decision Architecture 20 min

Decision architecture refers to how you arrange your information environment to support procedure use. If the audit card is not accessible at the moment you need it, it will not be used. This System Design week you arrange the environment around your habits so that running the procedure requires less friction than skipping it.

Identify two or three decision contexts where you regularly face consequential choices: a recurring meeting, a budget review, a personal planning session. Note where in those contexts your audit card and decision log are accessible
Make one change to your physical or digital environment that places a bias-check prompt at the point of decision for one of those contexts

Day 76 · Automating Availability Checks 15 min

The availability audit habit has been running for nine weeks. Today you look at how to make it lower-effort in the specific contexts where you need it most. The goal is to reduce the friction of running the check so it becomes part of the natural flow of high-stakes reasoning.

Identify the one context where you are most likely to make an availability-driven error. Design a one-sentence prompt for that context and write it where you will see it in that moment
Test the prompt in one real instance and note whether it changed the quality of your reasoning process

Day 77 · Feedback Loops for Decision Quality 15 min

Long-term improvement in decision quality requires feedback. Unlike calibration training where feedback is built in, confirmation bias practice can run without feedback if you never find out whether your beliefs were accurate. Today you design a simple feedback loop for one area of high-stakes belief.

Identify one domain where you hold strong beliefs that could in principle be verified over time. Design a minimal feedback loop: what outcome would you track, over what period, to evaluate whether your beliefs were accurate? Write it in your log
Schedule a check-in date in your log when you will review the feedback and update the belief if the evidence warrants it

Day 78 · Anchoring in Collaborative Settings 15 min

The pre-anchor self-estimate habit is a personal practice. In collaborative settings, its value extends to the group: if everyone writes their estimate privately before any numbers are shared, the group's final consensus is less likely to be anchored by the first person to speak.

Plan to introduce the private-estimate-first technique in one upcoming group meeting or discussion where numbers will be shared. Write a one-sentence prompt for how you would introduce it
After the meeting, note in your log whether the technique changed the pattern of the discussion

Day 79 · Organisational Sunk Cost 15 min

Sunk-cost reasoning operates at the organisational level too: teams escalate failing projects, organisations continue unprofitable strategies, and groups invest more to avoid admitting that past decisions were wrong. Recognising the pattern at a team level is a different challenge from catching it in your own thinking.

Identify one team-level or organisational commitment you are aware of where escalation of commitment may be operating. Describe it briefly in your log without naming individuals
Note what a fresh outside evaluator would say about that commitment if they had no knowledge of the prior investment

Day 80 · Calibration Over Eight Weeks 20 min

Your prediction log is five weeks old. A pattern review at this stage can show whether your calibration is changing over time, whether your intervals are converging on your actual accuracy level, and whether any domain has shifted more than others.

Review your prediction log from weeks 6 through 10. Has your confidence interval hit rate changed over time? Note any trend, even a slight one
In the domain where your calibration is weakest, write two changes to how you form estimates in that domain going forward

Day 81 · Week 11 Review 10 min

Week 11 done. You have designed your decision architecture, reduced friction on key habits, added a feedback loop for confirmation bias work, and reviewed your calibration trend. One more week remains. The final week shifts from practice to completion and forward planning.

Run your weekly bias pattern review for week 11. Note whether any structural change from this week made a habit noticeably easier to run
Review your personal decision protocol draft and make one final revision based on the system design work this week

Module 12CompletionDays 82–90

Day 82 · 90-Day Decision Audit 30 min

The final week opens with a comprehensive review. You have 81 days of decision log entries. Today you read through them to build a picture of how your decision practice has evolved from day 1 to day 82. The patterns across the full arc are more informative than any single week.

Read through your decision log entries from months 1 and 2. Note five changes in how you are approaching decisions now compared to the first two weeks. Write them in your log
Count the total decisions logged, catches recorded, and prediction entries made over 81 days. Record the counts

Day 83 · Availability: Three Months On 15 min

The availability audit habit has been running since day 8. Over three months, you have accumulated evidence about which availability patterns are most persistent for you and which you catch earlier now. Today you review the availability arc across all your entries.

Review your availability-related entries from across all three months. Note one availability pattern that still appears regularly and one that you catch earlier now than you did in month 1
Write a one-sentence description of your current availability vulnerability for the going-forward section of your personal decision protocol

Day 84 · Confirmation Bias: Updated Record 15 min

Confirmation bias was your week 3 focus and has returned in group and long-term contexts in month 3. Today you review the full confirmation arc and update the counter-evidence entry in your personal decision protocol.

Review your confirmation-related entries from all three months. Note one domain where the counter-evidence habit has genuinely shifted how you search for information, and one domain where it remains effortful
Update the confirmation bias entry in your personal decision protocol to reflect what you now know about your own patterns

Day 85 · Anchoring: Your Record 15 min

The pre-anchor self-estimate habit has been in your stack for 63 days. Today you review its history and update the anchoring entry in your personal decision protocol with what you now know about your vulnerabilities.

Review your anchoring entries from all three months. Note the decision category where the pre-anchor habit produced the widest gap between your estimate and the external anchor, and whether that gap tended to go in the same direction each time
Update the anchoring section of your personal decision protocol

Day 86 · Sunk Cost: What Has Changed 15 min

The sunk-cost reset question has been in your stack for 59 days. Today you review whether it has changed any significant commitments, or at least whether it changed how you were holding them.

Review your sunk-cost entries from all three months. Identify one commitment where the reset question genuinely influenced whether and how you continued. Note what happened
Write a brief sunk-cost section for your personal decision protocol noting your trigger type and personalised prompt

Day 87 · Calibration: Your Score 20 min

Your prediction log is now six weeks old. Today you run a full calibration review over all logged predictions. You are looking for a realistic baseline, not a verdict. Most people who run this exercise at this stage discover systematic overconfidence in at least one domain.

Compile all prediction log entries that have been resolved. Count your overall confidence interval hit rate and note it. Compare to your stated confidence level across all predictions
Update the calibration section of your personal decision protocol with your findings and one change to how you will form estimates going forward

Day 88 · The Complete Procedure Stack 20 min

You now have ten running habits, a prediction log, a personalised audit card, exit criteria for key commitments, and a draft personal decision protocol. Today you finalise the protocol as a single clean document you will actually use beyond day 90.

Finalise your personal decision protocol. Ensure it covers: your top two or three bias vulnerabilities, the three checks you will run on consequential decisions, your prediction log format, and your escalation exit criteria. Keep it under one page
Read through the finalised protocol and confirm every item is specific enough to act on. Remove any vague items

Day 89 · Designing for Continuation 15 min

Ninety-day programmes end. Good decision practice does not. Today you design the structure that keeps the most valuable habits alive after the programme closes. The habits that survived three months of practice are the ones worth carrying forward.

In your decision log, write a continuation plan: which habits will you maintain as standing practice, which will you apply only on significant decisions, and which will you set aside for now?
Identify one person you could share your bias audit card with, and one context where it would be most useful to introduce the pre-mortem in a team setting

Day 90 · Day 90 20 min

Ninety days done. You have built a structured decision procedure practice from the ground up. The debiasing literature is honest that biases are persistent and hard to eliminate: what has changed over this programme is not the existence of the biases but your relationship to them. You now have a set of habits and procedures that put a check in the path between bias and action. Keep the log, keep the procedure, and keep revising.

Write a final decision log entry: one thing that has genuinely changed in how you approach decisions, and one thing that remains hardest
File your personal decision protocol somewhere you will find it in three months. Set a reminder to review your prediction log at that date
Run your weekly bias pattern review one final time and note the most significant catch of the entire 90 days

The evidence

The frameworks this programme is built on — each anchored to peer-reviewed research, cited with its DOI and verified against the Crossref registry at build time. Where the evidence has honest limits, the framework says so.

Heuristics and Biases

Tversky & Kahneman · Science · 1974

The foundational framework showing that people rely on a limited number of heuristic principles when making probability judgements and predictions. Three heuristics, representativeness, availability, and anchoring-and-adjustment, produce systematic and predictable errors. Awareness of these patterns is the starting point for building decision procedures that catch them.

DOI: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124

Schwarz et al., 1991 — Ease of retrieval as information: shows that the fluency of recall, not just content, shapes availability judgements doi:10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.195

Confirmation Bias

Nickerson · Review of General Psychology · 1998

A comprehensive review of confirmation bias across many forms: selective information search, selective interpretation, and selective recall. The research shows this is one of the most pervasive reasoning errors, present even in experts. The principal defence is deliberate search for disconfirming evidence and active consideration of alternative hypotheses.

DOI: 10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175

Lord et al., 1979 — Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: people evaluate identical evidence differently depending on prior beliefs doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098

Anchoring Effect

Strack & Mussweiler · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · 1997

Anchoring refers to the disproportionate influence of an initial piece of information on subsequent estimates and judgements. Strack and Mussweiler's selective accessibility model explains the mechanism: an anchor activates anchor-consistent knowledge, which then dominates the estimate. Generating an own estimate before consulting external figures is the primary procedural countermeasure.

DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.3.437

Mussweiler et al., 2000 — Considering the opposite compensates for selective accessibility and partially corrects anchoring bias doi:10.1177/01461672002611010

Sunk Cost and Escalation

Arkes & Blumer · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · 1985

People tend to continue investing in a failing course of action because of prior irrecoverable expenditures. Arkes and Blumer's research shows this tendency appears in financial, time-based, and effort-based commitments. The key procedural countermeasure is evaluating future options on future-relevant factors only, ignoring prior investment.

DOI: 10.1016/0749-5978(85)90049-4

Thaler, 1980 — Mental accounting framework: sunk costs are housed in mental accounts that create psychological pressure to recoup losses doi:10.1016/0167-2681(80)90051-7

Overconfidence and Calibration

Moore & Healy · Psychological Review · 2008

The overconfidence literature identifies three distinct phenomena: overestimation of one's own performance, overplacement relative to others, and overprecision about the accuracy of one's beliefs. Moore and Healy show the pattern varies by task difficulty. Calibration practice, stating estimates as ranges and tracking outcomes, is the standard training approach.

DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.502

Lichtenstein & Fischhoff, 1977 — Foundational calibration study: people who know more are not always better calibrated about the limits of their knowledge doi:10.1016/0030-5073(77)90001-0

Debiasing Procedures

Larrick · Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making · 2004

Larrick's review of debiasing strategies concludes that simply informing people about a bias rarely reduces it. More effective are procedural approaches: consider-the-opposite techniques, structured decision formats, external reference-class forecasting, and deliberate feedback loops. The review emphasises that debiasing is a skill-building exercise requiring practice over time, not a one-time correction.

DOI: 10.1002/9780470752937.ch16

Fischhoff, 1982 — Early analysis of debiasing: explains why awareness alone is insufficient and describes procedural training approaches doi:10.1017/cbo9780511809477.032

Safety & fit

This 90-day protocol is a structured, educational programme. It is not medical advice and is not a substitute for professional guidance. Every framework it draws on is referenced to peer-reviewed literature for educational context only.

Questions, answered

How much time does this take?

The Cognitive Biases Protocol runs 90 days across 12 themed modules (about 13 calendar weeks). Each day asks for between 10 and 30 minutes of deliberate practice — the daily tasks are listed in the programme map on this page, so you can read the whole arc before you start.

How does the programme adapt to my week?

A weekly check-in reads the week you actually logged — not the week the plan assumed. Depending on the week you actually had, it lands on one of 4 adjustments: Build consistency first; Strengthen your catch log; Consistent practice; On track. Milestone reviews at day 30, day 60, day 90 read your whole record so far.

Where is my progress stored?

Entirely in this browser. Your daily log, notes, and check-ins live in local storage on this device — no account, no server, and nothing you type is transmitted. You can export your full log as a CSV file or delete everything, at any time, from the My log tab.

Is this medical advice?

No. This is a structured, educational programme built on peer-reviewed research — it is not medical advice, therapy, or a substitute for professional guidance. The full disclaimer, and every framework the programme draws on with its DOI, is on this page.

What happens if I miss days?

The programme is built to absorb real weeks. The weekly check-in works from whatever you logged: a thin week adjusts the plan rather than failing you, and no adjustment ever deletes your record. The adaptation rules above describe exactly how each kind of week is handled.

Where does the evidence come from?

Every phase of the programme is grounded in 6 evidence frameworks — 12 peer-reviewed references in total, each cited with its DOI in the evidence section on this page and verified against the Crossref registry at build time. Where the evidence has honest limits, the framework says so.

Go deeper

Hand-picked companions to this programme from across the estate — the baseline tool, the research deep dives, and the terms worth two minutes each.

assessment The Cognitive Biases Assessment Optional: take the matching self-assessment before day 1 and again after the programme to compare your reported habits.
deep-dive The Framing Effect How identical information changes your decision — the core mechanism here.
deep-dive The Dunning-Kruger Effect Why incompetence feels like competence, in the original research.
glossary Halo Effect How one trait corrupts a whole judgment.
glossary Loss Aversion The Kahneman research on the asymmetry of losses and gains.

Programme record

A living programme keeps a public record. Any future change to the daily tasks, the check-in rules, or their thresholds bumps the version and lands here.

v1.0 · July 2026Initial published programme: 90 daily practices across three phases, weekly adaptive check-ins, and milestone reviews at days 30, 60 and 90.