Yes, with separate jobs for separate goals
You can use Revision for more than one goal. The useful question is not whether the method allows it; it is whether adding another goal still leaves you with clear priorities and a manageable practice. Use revision for specific past events that still shape a present response, not as a universal cleanup ritual.
Keep the goals distinguishable
For Revision, separate goals by the kind of output the method should produce. Use revision for specific past events that still shape a present response, not as a universal cleanup ritual. Write one sentence for each goal that names its current constraint, then note whether both goals are competing for the same time, money, attention or another person’s cooperation. If they are, choose an order instead of asking the practice to make the conflict disappear.
What this looks like with Revision
Because this method is about revisiting the meaning of a past event in imagination or writing so you can rehearse a different interpretation or response, it works best when each goal preserves that function. You might revise an awkward interview to rehearse a better response and separately revisit a money mistake to extract a budgeting lesson. If the second goal makes the routine twice as long but adds no new decision information, use alternating days or a weekly rotation.
Give each goal a different next step
For goal one, finish the session by naming one controllable behaviour. Do the same for goal two. Those actions may be very different, and that is useful. The practice is helping when the exercise reduces rumination or helps you identify how you want to respond now. It is becoming noisy when using imagination to deny documented facts, avoid accountability or insist that history literally changed.
Do not use one result as proof for the other
Keep evidence attached to the goal that produced it. With Revision, a useful change in one area may show that the exercise reduces rumination or helps you identify how you want to respond now, but it does not validate unrelated predictions. Do not rewrite documented facts or erase accountability because two goals share an uncomfortable past. Record separate facts for each goal so a good week in one domain does not become a universal sign about everything else.
Use a capacity rule
Before activating another goal, ask whether you have enough attention to make a real decision or take a real step for it. If not, put it on a parking list with a review date. Parking is not abandonment. It prevents a long desire list from turning Revision into administration.
A realistic two-goal review
Review the two goals differently. For the first, write the next behaviour and the next external checkpoint. For the second, write what information is still missing. You might revise an awkward interview to rehearse a better response and separately revisit a money mistake to extract a budgeting lesson. If one goal keeps generating only imagined activity while the other creates real decisions, reduce the first goal’s practice time until it has a concrete route again.
Keep the claim boundary clear
Using Revision for two goals does not multiply causal power. The grounded benefit is organisational: you may clarify, rehearse or remember useful responses. Do not rewrite documented facts or erase accountability because two goals share an uncomfortable past. Health, legal, financial and safety decisions still need direct evidence and appropriate expertise.
Practical rule
Keep the system only while it helps you extract one present lesson, repair or behaviour from the revised perspective. If adding goals makes you check, repeat or interpret more, reduce the active set. A smaller number of well-defined goals is more useful than a large list that keeps every desire mentally open.
A Revision-specific capacity test
Imagine that you have only fifteen minutes for both goals this week. Decide what part of Revision deserves that time and what must happen outside the practice. The method should help you extract one present lesson, repair or behaviour from the revised perspective; it should not consume the time needed for the actual task. If the routine expands because you are trying to keep both goals emotionally active, cut the session before cutting the practical step.
When one goal should wait
Pause one goal when using imagination to deny documented facts, avoid accountability or insist that history literally changed starts to appear, when the goals compete for the same non-negotiable resource, or when one outcome depends on information you do not yet have. Give the parked goal a review date. That preserves it without forcing two simultaneous rituals and gives the active goal enough space to produce useful feedback.