Decision Reconstruction, Narrative and Retrospective Explanation

In practice, decisions are often explained after the fact using reconstructed narratives assembled from incomplete records.

This page clarifies the terminology commonly used to describe that process and explains how it differs from decision provenance.

Common Terms Used for Decision Reconstruction

Attempts to explain decisions after the fact are described using a range of terms, including:

decision reconstruction
decision narrative
retrospective justification
post-hoc explanation
narrative smoothing
decision storytelling
reconstructed rationale

These terms are often used interchangeably to describe efforts to explain how and why a decision was taken using records assembled after the decision occurred.

What These Approaches Have in Common

Despite differences in wording, reconstruction and narrative approaches typically share key characteristics:

they rely on records not created for evidentiary purposes
they infer decision context retrospectively
they are influenced by knowledge of outcomes
they are vulnerable to hindsight bias

As a result, they often produce explanations that are coherent but not evidentially reliable.

Decision Provenance as a Distinct Concept

Decision provenance differs from reconstruction and narrative approaches.

Rather than assembling an explanation after the fact, decision provenance preserves decision context, judgement and outcome at the time the decision is made.

It does not attempt to create a persuasive story. It preserves an evidentiary record.

Why Terminology Matters

The lack of stable terminology contributes to confusion about how decisions should be evidenced and explained.

By naming decision provenance as a distinct concept, it becomes possible to separate:

explanation from persuasion
evidence from narrative
context from hindsight