If you start with a formal definition of counterfactual reasoning 'thinking about what the world would be like now if things had been different in the past" then the polar opposite is 'thinking about the world defined by the current situation'.

If now you want to split this (challenging the basic dichotomy) you could try 'thinking about the world if none of the 'paths' are/were possible [ie a study of impossible worlds]', or 'thinking about the counterfactual reasoning that 'you' do not appreciate [ie recognising the observer dependent part of counterfactual reasoning and splitting on different perspectives]. This 'perspective' perspective is actually the super-class of your 'done well'/'done badly' distinction - you cannot judge absolutely good/bad rather your assessment is based on your own perspective.

The other fracture dimension comes from 'what/why is the purpose of the counterfactual thinking. Usually this is to conceive of possible futures and here there are plenty of opposites - futures I anticipate/futures I discount, futures I work towards/futures I take action to block etc.

Of course dichotomising uncertainty is perhaps the worst thing to do - you block off your options and constrain your room for manoeuvre.