[NoraCodes]

I always find formalized metacognitive tools like this very interesting. Having ingrained "memory items" that can be called on as if they were instinctual requires a huge training investment, and for highly dangerous situations the tradeoff of time spent to value is much clearer than for, say, software engineers. That said, having the right metacognitive tools deeply embedded in one's thought pattern might still be very valuable for those of us that fly desks rather than jets!

[meltyness]

This is not untrue, but a more applicable interpretation of this conceptual framework might go as follows:

In an AAR[0] operators explain risks, causes, and limitations of the system. This provides a formal structured language for describing how, precisely, supporting systems can be improved and how they impact all specific aspects of operator interaction.

Since the operator is viewed simply as a networked control-system in this case, the cognitive path from structure, supporting physical system, and then physical quantities needing improvement is unmistakably clear, as is required in successful planning, acquisitions, operations, and maintenance.[1]

Essentially it makes subjective experience concrete, and is prophylactic against bikeshedding/blame-gaming.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After-action_review

[1] https://youtu.be/ir0FAa8P2MU?t=1340