One framing I keep coming back to is this: market memory is biased because survivors do the storytelling. What is happening: The companies and strategies that persist are easier to study than the ones that quietly disappeared, yet the missing failures are often the more educational sample. That matters because survivorship bias makes many processes look cleaner than they were in real time. In practice: Reading only the winners of a theme can hide how much capital was lost on adjacent names that never made it through the cycle. Watch for: The mistake is mistaking the surviving map for the full terrain. Useful lens: A useful review question is which funding, incentive or cash-flow channel is actually doing the work. That is the kind of small conceptual habit that compounds into better decisions over time.