Frameworks and Complexity: Simplifying Decision-Making

Who created and checked this page

Correction history

Every accepted correction to this page is recorded with the exact change, so readers can see how the page improved over time.

1. 28 July 2026 · corrected by Emir Baycan

   Qualified or corrected seven claims: softened 'single most important insight in 20th-century decision science' about Simon's bounded rationality to 'one of the most influential'; flagged the 11-million/40-50-bits sensory figures as rough and debated while keeping the well-established input-vs-conscious-processing gap; correctly attributed the 1/N portfolio result to DeMiguel, Garlappi, and Uppal (2009); qualified the WHO Safe Surgery Checklist 47%/36% figures as before-and-after pilot-hospital results (Haynes et al. 2009), not a universal guarantee; attributed the active-fund underperformance pattern to SPIVA-type data and softened 'fewer than 15%'; noted the Five Whys 'five' is a rule of thumb; and generalized a fabricated-looking 1994 RAND SPC study (65% defect / 40% cost figures) to the well-documented but variable SPC improvement literature.

   Before

   The article called Simon's insight the single most important in decision science, gave precise 11M/40-50 bits figures, implied the WHO checklist universally reduces death 47%, said fewer than 15% of active funds outperform over 15 years, credited Five Whys with dramatic defect-resolution gains, and cited a 1994 RAND SPC study with 65%/40% figures.

   After

   Qualified the superlatives and rough figures, fixed the 1/N attribution, scoped the WHO and SPC results to what the sources support, and generalized the unverifiable RAND specifics.

   Why: The figures come from studies that are real but were overstated or, in the RAND case, unverifiable as cited. Corrections attribute and scope them rather than adding new sources.

   View the full record →

Full contribution timeline

1. Correction 28 July 2026

   Emir Baycan: Qualified or corrected seven claims: softened 'single most important insight in 20th-century decision science' about Simon's bounded rationality to 'one of the most influential'; flagged the 11-million/40-50-bits sensory figures as rough and debated while keeping the well-established input-vs-conscious-processing gap; correctly attributed the 1/N portfolio result to DeMiguel, Garlappi, and Uppal (2009); qualified the WHO Safe Surgery Checklist 47%/36% figures as before-and-after pilot-hospital results (Haynes et al. 2009), not a universal guarantee; attributed the active-fund underperformance pattern to SPIVA-type data and softened 'fewer than 15%'; noted the Five Whys 'five' is a rule of thumb; and generalized a fabricated-looking 1994 RAND SPC study (65% defect / 40% cost figures) to the well-documented but variable SPC improvement literature.

   Proof record →