Does the level of procedural detail in a recipe actually affect whether you make it again?

Thinking about what separates a recipe you return to from one you try once and set aside. A tightly documented method, specific weights, temperatures, timing windows, gives you a more controlled second attempt, but I'm not sure that reliability is what drives the decision to repeat something. It might just be the result itself, independent of how well the process was recorded. There's also a secondary question about whether detailed personal notes from a first run change how you evaluate a recipe afterward. If your second attempt benefits from corrections you made, are you rating the recipe or your refined execution of it? Curious whether people separate those two things when deciding something is worth making again.