Want to know how much website downtime costs, and the impact it can have on your business?
Find out everything you need to know in our new uptime monitoring whitepaper 2021
In the previous post, we looked at what happens after detection; when incidents stop being purely technical problems and become human ones, with cognitive load as the real constraint.
This post assumes that context.
The question here is simpler and more practical. What actually helps teams think clearly and act well once things are already going wrong?
One answer, used quietly but consistently by high-performing teams, is the checklist.
What Checklists Are (and Aren’t)
Given that engineers operate under pressure, uncertainty, and incomplete information during incidents, checklists serve a very specific role.
They are decision support, not documentation.
A good checklist:
- externalises memory;
- reduces decision fatigue;
- highlights blind spots; and
- slows thinking just enough to avoid compounding mistakes
A bad checklist:
- tries to encode every possible scenario;
- reads like a runbook;
- grows indefinitely; and
- adds friction instead of clarity,
The difference isn’t intent. It’s design.
In reliability-focused teams, operational tools like checklists are treated as aids to decision-making under uncertainty. They’re not there to be used as exhaustive instructions.
How to Tell if a Checklist Will Actually Help
Not all checklists reduce cognitive load. Some quietly increase it. In practice, the usefulness of a checklist comes down to a few constraints.
Length matters.
If a checklist has more than roughly 15–20 items for a single phase, it’s probably doing too much. Under pressure, long lists increase scanning time and encourage skipping. Breaking prompts into short, situational sections keeps them usable.
Structure matters.
Organising prompts by moment, e.g. the first few minutes, active mitigation, standing down etc, mirrors how incidents actually unfold. Engineers shouldn’t have to translate process into reality while things are breaking.
Wording matters.
Effective checklists use plain language and avoid internal jargon or shorthand. Prompts should be understandable even by someone who didn’t build the system. Questions tend to work better than commands because they encourage thinking rather than rote execution.
Evolution matters.
A checklist that never changes is a warning sign. The most useful ones evolve in response to real incidents, near-misses, and moments of hesitation.
The goal isn’t perfect coverage. It’s to provide clarity when clarity is hardest to come by.
A Worked Example: An Incident Checklist
What follows is one example of how teams reduce cognitive load during incidents. It’s not a universal template; rather a starting point to adapt to your own systems and failure modes.
The structure reflects how incidents actually feel in practice.
Phase 1: The First Few Minutes (Orientation)
Before jumping to fixes, teams need to orient themselves.
Helpful prompts include:
- Are users affected right now?
How do we know? Is this internal noise or external impact? - What just changed?
Recent deploys, configuration changes, feature flags, infrastructure work. - Is the situation improving, degrading, or static?
Which signals tell us that? - Who is coordinating?
One clear owner reduces duplicated effort and crossed wires.
These prompts exist to prevent teams from solving the wrong problem first.
Phase 2: While Mitigating (Stability)
Once oriented, the focus shifts to limiting damage. Useful prompts here include:
- What is the safest reversible action available?
Rollbacks and mitigations often beat complex fixes under pressure. - Are our actions changing the signals we care about?
If not, are we acting on assumptions rather than evidence? - Are we introducing new risk while trying to reduce current risk?
Speed without control compounds failure. - Do we still agree on what “success” looks like?
Misalignment slows teams down when time matters most.
This phase is about resisting the urge to “do more” when clarity is lacking.
Phase 3: Before Standing Down (Confirmation)
Many incidents last longer than they need to because teams aren’t sure when it’s safe to stop.
Before standing down, prompts like these help restore confidence:
- Which signal tells us users are no longer affected?
Not “we think it’s fixed”, but “this shows it’s fixed”. - Has behaviour returned to normal externally, not just internally?
- What uncertainty remains?
Are we comfortable carrying it, or do we need to stay engaged?
This phase exists to avoid both premature confidence and unnecessary caution.
Where External Signals Reduce Cognitive Load
When internal dashboards are noisy, delayed, or contradictory, independent signals become especially valuable.
External monitoring helps answer a few simple but critical questions:
- Can users actually reach us right now?
- Did that rollback change anything?
- Is the issue truly resolved from the outside?
An outside-in signal provides a shared point of reference when internal views are inconclusive. That common ground helps teams align decisions and regain confidence.
This is where tools like StatusCake are most useful; not as a driver of incident response, but as a reliable confirmation when it matters most.
Why This Checklist Will Change Over Time
A good checklist is never finished. It evolves because:
- incidents reveal where people hesitated;
- confusion exposes missing prompts; and
- near-misses highlight unsafe assumptions.
In reliability engineering, this kind of iteration is expected. Operational practices improve by learning from real incidents, not by trying to predict every failure in advance. And every “we weren’t sure what to do next” is feedback about the system, not the individual.
That’s how checklists become leverage; they’re small refinements that compound across future incidents.
What This Enables (and What It Doesn’t)
Checklists won’t prevent every incident. That’s not their job. What they do is:
- shorten time to orientation;
- reduce cognitive load at critical moments;
- make decisions calmer and more consistent; and
- reduce reliance on heroics.
They help teams respond with confidence rather than panic.
Closing
Checklists are not the goal. They’re a tool. They exist because modern systems are complex, change is fast, and humans operate under pressure.
If teams need checklists to work safely during incidents, the next question becomes:
What kind of systems, signals, and incentives reduce the need for those checklists in the first place?
That’s where we’ll explore next. We’ll zoom out from incident response to designing systems that create confidence by default.
Further Reading
If you’d like to explore the ideas behind checklists, human factors, and reliability engineering in more depth, the following books are excellent starting points:
- The Checklist Manifesto – Atul Gawande
- Human Error – James Reason
- The Field Guide to Understanding ‘Human Error’ – Sidney Dekker
- Thinking in Systems – Donella Meadows
- The Site Reliability Workbook
Across very different domains, these works reinforce the same idea. That systems should be designed to support humans, especially when conditions are difficult.
James Barnes
Share this
More from StatusCake
The Incident Checklist: Reducing Cognitive Load When It Matters Most
4 min read In the previous post, we looked at what happens after detection; when incidents stop being purely technical problems and become human ones, with cognitive load as the real constraint. This post assumes that context. The question here is simpler and more practical. What actually helps teams think clearly and act well once things are already
James Barnes
January 28, 2026
When Things Go Wrong, Systems Should Help Humans — Not Fight Them
3 min read In the previous post, we explored how AI accelerates delivery and compresses the time between change and user impact. As velocity increases, knowing that something has gone wrong before users do becomes a critical capability. But detection is only the beginning. Once alerts fire and dashboards light up, humans still have to interpret what’s happening,
James Barnes
January 21, 2026
When AI Speeds Up Change, Knowing First Becomes the Constraint
5 min read In a recent post, I argued that AI doesn’t fix weak engineering processes; rather it amplifies them. Strong review practices, clear ownership, and solid fundamentals still matter just as much when code is AI-assisted as when it’s not. That post sparked a follow-up question in the comments that’s worth sitting with: With AI speeding things
James Barnes
January 14, 2026
Make Your Engineering Processes Resilient. Not Your Opinions About AI
4 min read Why strong reviews, accountability, and monitoring matter more in an AI-assisted world Artificial intelligence has become the latest fault line in software development. For some teams, it’s an obvious productivity multiplier. For others, it’s viewed with suspicion. A source of low-quality code, unreviewable pull requests, and latent production risk. One concern we hear frequently goes
James Barnes
January 8, 2026
Blog
How to monitor IPFS assets with StatusCake
3 min read IPFS is a game-changer for decentralised storage and the future of the web, but it still requires active monitoring to ensure everything runs smoothly.
Daniel
January 9, 2025
Engineering
What’s new in Chrome Devtools?
3 min read For any web developer, DevTools provides an irreplaceable aid to debugging code in all common browsers. Both Safari and Firefox offer great solutions in terms of developer tools, however in this post I will be talking about the highlights of the most recent features in my personal favourite browser for coding, Chrome DevTools. For something
Alexandra Moore
April 17, 2023