An After Action Review (AAR) includes four guiding questions. Which set correctly lists them?

An After Action Review (AAR) includes four guiding questions. Which set correctly lists them?

• A. What was supposed to happen? What actually happened? Why was there a difference? What can we improve next time?
• B. What happened? Who was involved? What is the plan? What will be done next?
• C. What was supposed to happen? What actually happened? Why was there a difference? What can we improve next time?
• D. What went right? What went wrong? Who is responsible? How will we punish?

Answer: (C)

The important idea here is how an After Action Review is structured to pull useful learning from an event: compare what was planned with what actually happened, understand why any differences occurred, and decide how to improve next time. The four guiding questions are exactly that sequence: What was supposed to happen? What actually happened? Why was there a difference? What can we improve next time? Framing the review this way keeps the discussion objective and forward-looking, focusing on outcomes and lessons rather than assigning blame. It ensures we capture the intended plan, observe the real results, diagnose the causes of gaps, and translate those insights into concrete improvements for future actions. Other options drift into areas like who was involved, who’s responsible, or even punishment, or they emphasize planning or execution without tying them back to analyzing deviations and deriving improvements, which makes them less effective for a true learning-focused AAR.

The important idea here is how an After Action Review is structured to pull useful learning from an event: compare what was planned with what actually happened, understand why any differences occurred, and decide how to improve next time. The four guiding questions are exactly that sequence: What was supposed to happen? What actually happened? Why was there a difference? What can we improve next time? Framing the review this way keeps the discussion objective and forward-looking, focusing on outcomes and lessons rather than assigning blame. It ensures we capture the intended plan, observe the real results, diagnose the causes of gaps, and translate those insights into concrete improvements for future actions. Other options drift into areas like who was involved, who’s responsible, or even punishment, or they emphasize planning or execution without tying them back to analyzing deviations and deriving improvements, which makes them less effective for a true learning-focused AAR.