SCRIPT CHECK · 60 SECONDS
Five quick questions show how often it appears, how believable it feels, and what it makes you avoid. You’ll get one private next step.
This is not a diagnosis and there is no pass or fail. It measures the current frequency, credibility, and behavioral cost of “I rewrote the postmortem in my head on the drive home”, including the private rule underneath it: If I can find the exact wording that explains my part without indicting it, the record will finally feel settled, so I keep drafting a version of the postmortem that only exists in my head, as if precision now could change what's already…
QUIET
“I rewrote the postmortem in my head on the drive home” appears, but it rarely gets the final say. Keep this line available for higher-pressure moments: “The doc is already filed. No sentence I draft in the car changes what's written.”
PRESENT
“I rewrote the postmortem in my head on the drive home” wins some small decisions before you catch it. Your useful interruption is: “My part is one line in a timeline, not a verdict I have to keep editing.”
ACTIVE
“I rewrote the postmortem in my head on the drive home” is shaping action often enough to deserve a deliberate counterexample. Start privately and concretely: Before you go inside tonight, open the finalized incident doc, read the one sentence naming your part exactly as written, then close it without editing anything.
DOMINANT
Right now, “I rewrote the postmortem in my head on the drive home” is steering many of the moments you measured. That is a pattern reading, not a diagnosis or character verdict. Begin with one reversible receipt: Before you go inside tonight, open the finalized incident doc, read the one sentence naming your part exactly as written, then close it without editing anything.