When you review a journal entry, what do you look at first: the decision or the state you were in?

Journal reviews often start with the trade itself: the entry, the exit, whether the number came out green or red. I've noticed that this order can quietly hide the more useful information, which is what was going on before the button was pressed. Things like how long the decision took, whether the plan was written down before the market moved, or whether the trade was a planned one or a reaction to the last loss are all process details that tend to get skipped. One way to try it is to read each entry twice: once for the decision logic, and once for the emotional and situational context. Some people tag entries with a single word for their state at the time, such as rushed, bored, calm, or annoyed, and then look for patterns across weeks rather than single sessions. Nothing here is a clinical measure, so treat it as a rough notebook habit rather than a diagnosis. When you do your own reviews, which part do you read first, and has that order ever changed what you noticed?