What is the test for determining whether a defence counsel acted as a "tactical error" in the context of a witness witness testimony?

On review, we "must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. [Citation.] Tactical errors are generally not deemed reversible, and counsel's decisionmaking must be evaluated in the context of the available facts. [Citation.] To the extent the record on appeal fails to disclose why counsel acted or failed to act in the manner challenged, we will affirm the judgment unless counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one, or unless there simply could be no satisfactory explanation." (People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 389.) "[D]efendant must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action 'might be considered sound trial strategy.' " (Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 689.)