I'm confused here: You seem to be analyzing a troubleshooting process. How exactly did the troubleshooting process fail? I can see that there's some criticisms of what was done. But I don't see how this troubleshooting process resulted in disaster.
Because I missed numerous implications, needlessly increased causal opacity, and failed to establish a baseline before I started fiddling with variables. Those are poor troubleshooting practices.
Some have tried, they each invent their own vocabulary and the works are generally considered difficult to decipher.
The technique you are using is very similar to a technique for treating traumas (googlefu is failing me I don't remember the name) though in that model you also use visualization of a memory before the target event and after the target event to play in sequence as a movie. Instead of just watching the movie you imagine watching yourself watch the movie.
"What follows is an edited version of an exercise I performed about a month ago following an embarrassing error cascade. I call it a ‘failure autopsy’, and on one level it’s basically the same thing as an NFL player taping his games and analyzing them later, looking for places to improve.
But the aspiring rationalist wishing to do the something similar faces a more difficult problem, for a couple of reasons:
First, the movements of a mind can’t be seen in the same way the movements of a body can, meaning a different approach must be taken when doing granular analysis of mistaken cognition.
Second, learning to control the mind is simply much harder than learning to control the body.
And third, to my knowledge, nobody has really even tried to develop a framework for doing with rationality what an NFL player does with football, so someone like me has to pretty much invent the technique from scratch on the fly.
I took a stab at doing that, and I think the result provides some tantalizing hints at what a more mature, more powerful versions of this technique might look like. Further, I think it illustrates the need for what I’ve been calling a “Dictionary of Internal Events”, or a better vocabulary for describing what happens between your ears."