Key takeaways
- Ask for the last case that changed the expert's mind, not a general description of how the job works.
- Capture cues, contrasts, rejected options and corrections. Those reveal usable boundaries better than a polished retrospective.
- Treat every extracted rule as a hypothesis until another person applies it to a fresh case and reaches a defensible result.
- Some tacit skill cannot be fully verbalized or automated. Preserve mentoring, practice and accountable judgment where the test keeps failing.
Target the decision residue left out of the document
NASA's tacit-knowledge oral histories deliberately collect the rationale and background around critical decisions, not only process descriptions. That distinction matters. A document can list five steps while leaving out the weak signal that causes an experienced person to skip step three.
Begin where observed behavior and the current procedure diverge. The gap may be a legitimate exception, an obsolete document, a hidden preference or an unsafe shortcut. Capture evidence before deciding which.
| Prompt | What it exposes | Record |
|---|---|---|
| What did you notice first? | Cue and attention order | Source field, signal and timestamp |
| Which two options were closest? | Decision boundary | Contrasting cases and rejected path |
| When would this advice be wrong? | Exception and limit | Counterexample and escalation owner |
| What did you correct last time? | Hidden quality test | Before, after, reason and verification |
Run capture as an observe, contrast, draft, test loop
- 01Observe without cleaning the caseHuman approvalUse the real source material and interruptions. A staged happy path removes the very evidence you need.
- 02Mark every branch and correctionTriggerRecord the source cue, the choice made and the result. Ask after the action so the expert can point to evidence.
- 03Create a contrast pairAI judgmentFind a similar case that took another route. Draft the smallest distinction that explains the difference.
- 04Let the expert attack the ruleHuman approvalAsk for a counterexample and an unsafe application. Add scope, refusal and escalation.
- 05Test with a successorHuman approvalUse a fresh case. Compare the decision path and final state, not whether the successor repeated the wording.
A usable knowledge record is small enough to test
| Field | Example | Failure it prevents |
|---|---|---|
| Cue | Customer promise conflicts with standard lead time | Rule applied without the signal |
| Evidence | Signed order, commitment record, current capacity | Decision based on recollection |
| Default path | Keep standard date | Every case becomes bespoke |
| Exception test | Named commitment plus available capacity | Preference mistaken for rule |
| Authority | Service lead may accept; otherwise escalate | Knowledge transferred without permission |
| Verification | Promise recorded and schedule reconciled | Decision made but effect lost |
Put the tested record into the procedure or workflow it changes. NASA's lessons-learned policy calls for lessons to be assessed and fed back into policies, procedures, standards and training. A searchable archive alone does not change the next run.
One correction reveals a rule and a relationship boundary
A branch manager rejects an apparently efficient technician swap. The written schedule shows both technicians are qualified. Asked what she noticed, she points to a recently repaired customer relationship and an explicit promise that the same technician would return.
The draft rule is not “never swap technicians.” It is: before changing an assigned return visit, check the commitment record; if continuity was promised, route the proposal to the service lead. The successor applies it to a fresh case and finds the same cue.
The relationship judgment remains human. The repeatable evidence check and route can become part of the workflow.
Stop trying to codify when practice remains the only valid test
- Different qualified experts keep disagreeing after the evidence and scope are aligned.
- The signal is embodied skill, novel diagnosis or a relationship judgment that cannot be reproduced from permitted data.
- The decision carries authority the successor does not have.
- Fresh cases expose new material branches faster than the record stabilizes.
- A rule would create false confidence in a safety, legal, financial, employment or security judgment.
In those cases, design mentoring, practice, observation and escalation. The retirement-transfer guide shows how to keep that uncodified work visible in the handover.
Limitations and when not to use this
- Not all tacit knowledge can be verbalized, captured or automated. The method identifies testable parts and makes the remainder explicit.
- Observation requires permission and appropriate handling of customer, employee, personal and confidential information. Use redacted or synthetic cases where required.
- An extracted rule is not validated by fluent wording. It needs expert challenge, fresh-case use and outcome verification.
- The example is simulated and does not describe a customer or product result.
Sources
- Space Shuttle Tacit Knowledge Capture Oral Histories — NASA Accessed 9 August 2026
- Knowledge Policy for Programs and Projects — NASA Accessed 9 August 2026
- Continuous Capture of Lessons Learned During Project Lifecycle — NASA Lessons Learned Information System Accessed 9 August 2026
Map one observed case
Translate one case into steps, actors, evidence, output and exception ownership.
Map one observed caseUli Prantz
Builds and operates all-agents
Uli Prantz builds all-agents, the process-automation platform this site documents. He writes about the operational side of automating recurring business work: where deterministic code beats model judgment, where it does not, and where a human still has to approve.