Which action is inappropriate when conducting an after-action review (AAR) for an area security operation?

• A. Publicly shaming individuals for mistakes.
• B. Gather participants and review objectives.
• C. Analyzing successes and failures.
• D. Extracting lessons learned and assigning corrective actions.

Answer: (A)

An after-action review is all about learning and improving future performance in a constructive, non-punitive setting. The goal is to understand what happened, why it happened, and what to change so things go better next time. Publicly shaming individuals undermines that purpose. It creates fear, discourages honest discussion, and shifts focus from system or process issues to personal blame, which reduces transparency and trust and makes people less willing to report problems in the future.

In a good AAR, you gather participants and review the objectives to align everyone on what was supposed to happen. You analyze both successes and failures to get a balanced view, and you extract lessons learned along with concrete corrective actions to close gaps. Those elements—clear objectives, open analysis of outcomes, and actionable improvements—are what drive real progress after an operation.

So the inappropriate action is public shaming, because it blocks learning and improvement. The other steps are appropriate and essential parts of an effective AAR.