Sure, if something is super critical then you should solve the problem as fast as possible. I'm not debating that. But there's probably a middle ground there somewhere for less critical issues. I suspect the process of generating and falsifying hypotheses quickly is the skill, and I don't know if you can effectively train that skill after an incident, when you've already seen the resolution.

Chess is maybe not a great analogy, because there are rarely objectively correct answers, only hard trade-offs. For that reason there's still a lot of value in reviewing a finished game.