Previsualization assumes follow-through. If you have an image in your mind when you release the shutter, and in processing the image you change your mind and take it somewhere else, that has to count as a failed previsualization. It may not be a failure as a photograph, however.
There are two reasons why you might change your mind.
You might not be able to get the effect you were looking for. If you can’t turn the image as captured into what you imagined at the instant of exposure. That is a clear previsualization miscarriage, and presumably a failed photograph, unless it is combined with…
… you might have a better idea later. If that’s the case, it’s probably not a failed photograph. Presumably, the image you first had in your head was a good one, and if you come up with a different interpretation later, you’ve stumbled onto something even better. An attempt at previsualization is part of the path that brought you to your improved image, but you can’t say that you previsualized the result.
That brings me to the relationship of previsualization and the evolution of image interpretation over time. Ansel Adams is a case in point. We are fortunate to have examples of prints from the same negative made many years apart. The prints are often dramatically different, and there is a pattern to the differences: Adams’ printing style evolved in the direction of greater drama and more aggressive manipulation. To the degree that previsualization was involved in creating the negatives, the earlier prints must be closer to Adams’ pre-exposure vision. Does that make the later prints bad? Of course not. Just not previsualized.