Yesterday I noticed a mistake in my reasoning that seems to be due to a cognitive bias, and I wonder how widespread or studied it is, or if it has a name - I can't think of an obvious candidate.

I was leaving work, and I entered the parking elevator in the lobby and pressed the button for floor -4. Three people entered after me - call them A, B and C - but because I hadn't yet turned around to face the door, as elevator etiquette requires, I didn't see which one of them pressed which button. As I turned around and the doors started to close, I saw that -2 and -3 were lit in addition to my -4. So, three floors and four people, means two people will come out on one of the floors, and I wondered which one it'll be.

The elevator stopped at floor -2. A and B got out. Well, I thought, so C is headed for -3, and I for -4 alone. As the doors were closing, B rushed back and squeezed through them. I realized she didn't want -2, and went out of the elevator absent-mindedly. I wondered which floor she did want. The elevator went down to -3. The doors opened and B got out... and then something weird happened: C didn't. I was surprised. Something wasn't right in my idle deductions. I figured it out in the few seconds it took for the elevator to descend to my floor and let me out together with C.

Where did I go wrong? When I knew that B left on -2, I deduced, correctly, that C will get out on -3. But then B came back; the fact of her leaving on -2 turned out to be wrong; yet I didn't cancel my deduction about C and didn't return him the "freedom" of leaving either on -3 or on -4. It didn't even occur to me to do that. Why didn't it?

It seems important that the new information was a correction of a known fact, and not just some other fact. If I treat the new information "B does not leave at -2" purely as a fact, the consequence for C is "C may leave either on -3 or on -4", which is already clear as it is and not worth updating. No, it seems "B does not leave at -2" has a special character when it comes to correct the previously-assumed "B left at -2". It comes as a "rollback" of existing information and I need to "roll back" everything I deduced from that information. And that seems hard to do and easy to forget. So if wasn't just a failure to update that I committed. It was a failure to "roll back".

On reflection, this mistake seems like something we might be doing often, and something to keep an eye out for. Is there a name for this mistake, has it been studied?