I just watched the new film on this story, Society of the Snow (I assume we all know this story, but if not, spoilers).
Whenever I watch anything like this, I always think, what would I do in that situation?
Always a hard question as it's hard to unknow what you know in hindsight and it's hard to know how your body and mind would react under those strains. But I find it a fun exercise regardless.
The one decision that I find really interesting to think about is the direction to hike out of the mountains.
They chose to hike West, over a ridge 700m higher than them on the basis they they believed they were on the western edge of the Andes and over the ridge they would see lights from towns. And any other direction would have meant crossing the entire Andes.
I think (caveats above) I would have argued to go East regardless. My rational would be, if we are on the West side of the Andes, then the valley will likely bend round in the direction we want to go. If we're in the middle of the Andes, then East or West is equally desirable so pick the easier route (i.e. downhill).
Worst case, we're on the West of the Andes, and the East direction valley crosses the entire mountain range, it's going to be downhill all the way and every meter you loose in elevation, everything apart form food refrigeration improves quickly.
Now even with the benefit of hindsight, I'm not sure if East would have been better. For reference the crash location is here: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Santuario+y+monumento+de+la+tragedia+de+A...
It would have been an easier and safer walk to go East, but if they had to walk all the way to El Sosneado to get help, then West may have been the right call.
But not knowing what we now know, would you have been persuaded by a difficult but hopefully short climb West, or an easier but potentially much longer walk East?
