Yes — if you separate the goals clearly
You can use Revision for two goals at once, but combining goals is only useful when the practice still tells you what to do. Revision is built around re-imagining or rewriting a past event in a more useful form, usually to change the meaning you carry forward rather than the historical record. If two goals are packed into the same session without structure, the result can become vague and difficult to review. A cleaner approach is to give each goal its own short pass or deliberately choose one shared behaviour that genuinely serves both.
Decide whether the goals actually belong together
Start by asking whether the goals compete for the same time, money or attention. Two compatible goals might be improving fitness and sleeping more consistently; the same evening routine could support both. A promotion goal and a plan to reduce working hours may need separate decisions because progress on one could make the other harder. Revision does not solve that conflict for you. Seeing the trade-off is part of the exercise.
Keep the mechanics separate
For Revision, the working process is to record the facts first, identify the interpretation that is causing trouble, create a more useful rehearsal for next time, then take one corrective action. Run that sequence for goal A, stop, then run it for goal B. This gives you two records you can compare instead of one blended entry. The separation also makes it easier to notice when one goal is receiving all the real action while the other survives only as a repeated intention.
A concrete example
Imagine your first goal is after a presentation that went badly, rewriting the lesson as “I need a shorter opening and one rehearsal” instead of “I am terrible at public speaking”, while your second goal is improving a different part of life such as organising household finances. Use the method once for the first goal and once for the second. At the end, each should produce a distinct next step. If both entries finish with the same vague instruction—“stay positive” or “trust the process”—the practice has not yet done enough planning work.
Use P3359 as two separate records
Open P3359 and make one entry per goal. Label them clearly and give each an independent review date. Avoid creating a single giant entry with several outcomes mixed together. When you review, ask which goal changed your behaviour, which needs different resources and whether either goal should be paused. The tool is useful when it preserves decisions, not when it simply stores more wishes.
Watch for the method-specific failure mode
With Revision, the main risk is confusing imagination with what actually happened, using revision to avoid accountability, or repeatedly replaying a painful event until distress increases. Two goals can amplify that problem because there are now twice as many opportunities to monitor, repeat or correct the practice. Revision does not change evidence, erase harm or remove another person’s memory. Where accountability or documentation matters, the factual record stays primary. A reasonable limit is one short session per goal and no extra round merely because one outcome feels more urgent.
Prioritise when the goals compete
When two Revision goals compete for the same time, money or attention, choose a temporary priority and record why. Parking the second goal for a week is not giving up; it is resource allocation. Review the parked goal later instead of trying to give both equal practice time regardless of real constraints.
Review evidence separately
At the review point, write what changed for each goal: actions completed, information learned, obstacles discovered and decisions made. Do not count coincidences as progress if nothing else moved. The safest distinction is between revising meaning and revising history: you can change what you practise next without claiming the original event occurred differently. The question is whether the method helped you manage two real priorities without turning them into one blurred story.
Two revision targets should stay factually separate
If you are revising two experiences, use two entries and preserve the factual outline of each. One entry might address a presentation you handled poorly; another might address a tense family conversation. In each case, identify the lesson you want to carry forward rather than blending them into a general story that “everything is now fixed.”
Two entries also make accountability clearer. If you owe an apology or need to correct a record, revision does not replace that action. The imagined alternative can rehearse what you wish you had done and what you will do next time, while the real-world repair remains real-world work.
Bottom line
Yes, Revision can be used for two goals at once. Keep the goals distinct, give each its own action and review point, and prioritise when they compete. The method should make two goals easier to manage, not double the amount of ritual you feel obliged to perform.