How does "Go deep on "what went well" — extract the recipe, not just the win" work?

The standard "what went well" list catalogues outcomes without extracting the behavioral cause. Without identifying the specific inputs (habits, decisions, structures) that produced the wins, the learning cannot be reproduced. Going deep on success is as important as auditing failure, because it builds the self-theory needed to do more of what actually works.

How does "Spend more time on "what did not go well" than on what did" work?

Successful outcomes are overdetermined — many things contributed, making attribution difficult. Failed outcomes often have more identifiable single causes or patterns that, if changed, would produce a different result. Human psychology defaults to dwelling on success and minimizing failure; a structure that inverts this default produces disproportionately higher learning per review hour.

How does "Generate a stop-doing list, not just a to-do list for next year" work?

The annual review commonly produces a list of new commitments for next year, added on top of existing ones. Without identifying things to stop, the new commitments compete with persistent old ones for the same finite time and attention. A stop-doing list creates the capacity for the new commitments by explicitly retiring activities, obligations, or relationships that no longer serve.

How does "Frame next-year commitments as experiments, not resolutions" work?

Resolutions create a binary succeed/fail frame that produces all-or-nothing thinking; a single lapse reads as total failure. Framing new commitments as time-boxed experiments changes the evaluation criterion from "did I keep this" to "what did I learn from trying this." The experiment frame also encourages honesty about whether the hypothesis was correct, rather than defending a resolution.

How does "Inventory your peak experiences to find the conditions that produced them" work?

Peak experiences (Maslow) — moments of deep engagement, meaning, or flow — are not random. They tend to occur when specific conditions are present: a particular type of work, social context, physical state, or freedom from certain pressures. Identifying the conditions of past peak experiences allows deliberate design of conditions more likely to produce them next year.

How does "Share the review with someone who will ask honest questions" work?

Social commitment research shows that stated commitments are more likely to be kept when witnessed by others. More importantly, sharing a review with someone who can ask honest questions surfaces the rationalizations and self-deceptions that a solo review tends to miss. The honest questioner adds an external perspective that self-examination alone cannot provide.

Tim Ferriss

How do you run an honest annual review that actually changes the next year?

Two questions, applied honestly, across your whole life — and what to do with the answers

Short answer

Tim Ferriss’s annual review is built on two questions — "What went well this year?" and "What did not go well this year?" — applied systematically across major life domains and answered with enough specificity to produce different decisions next year. It is a practitioner tool without clinical evidence, but its mechanisms (structured reflection, explicit failure review, behavioral specificity) are consistent with goal-review and learning research.

Most annual reviews are celebrations of success and vague pledges of improvement. Ferriss’s version inverts the usual proportion: it spends more time on what did not go well than what did, because that is where the actionable information lives. The process forces honest accounting of the past year across all domains, extracts the real lessons, and converts them into specific commitments for the next twelve months. The practices below systematize that process.

The practices (7)

Why it works

Unaided memory reconstructs the past with significant recency and salience bias — recent events and emotionally intense events are overrepresented; steady, meaningful, mundane work is underrepresented. A calendar or journal from the actual year provides an external record that corrects the reconstruction, surfacing events the memory would otherwise miss or minimize.

How to do it

1Before sitting down to review, pull twelve months of calendar data, photo rolls, and any notes or journals.
2Skim them quickly for events, decisions, and shifts — you are not reading in depth, you are jogging memory.
3Flag any event that produced a strong reaction (positive or negative) for deeper exploration in the reflection.
4Identify anything that consumed significant time but barely registers in memory — that asymmetry is information.

Evidence

Observational

Memory reconstruction is subject to recency and salience biases; external retrieval cues significantly improve the accuracy and completeness of autobiographical recall.

Honest caveat: The calendar-as-anchor approach is a practitioner inference from memory research; its specific effect on annual review quality has not been studied directly.

— Conway & Pleydell-Pearce (2000), construction of autobiographical memories, Psychological Review

Common mistake: Starting the review without gathering external records and relying on memory alone, which produces a review dominated by the last two months and the most dramatic moments.

Go deeper on this practice →

Practice this with IX Coach

Reading about a practice changes nothing on its own. IX Coach turns these into a guided, adaptive routine — discerning where you are in real time and walking the practice with you, session after session.

Start with IX Coach →