{
  "schema": "vedokrok.public-item.v1",
  "release_id": "MHC-RPUB-20260920-75ad787a",
  "url": "/knowledge/delay-confidence-until-after-a-retrieval-attempt",
  "id": "MHC-D-RESEARCH-1247",
  "version": "0.1.0",
  "title": "Delay confidence until after a retrieval attempt",
  "summary": "Fresh familiarity is a poor substitute for finding out what is still there later.",
  "kind": "protocol",
  "body": "Do not score understanding while the answer is still sitting in front of you. Create a short delay, remove the source, try to retrieve the key idea or procedure, and only then rate confidence. Research on delayed judgments of learning shows a large improvement in relative monitoring accuracy in memory tasks, which is useful here as a boundary: the move improves the quality of the check more than it proves mastery.",
  "limits": [
    "The meta-analysis concerns judgments of learning in memory tasks. Delaying a judgment does not validate complex professional reasoning, and high-confidence retrieval can still be wrong."
  ],
  "topics": [
    "union-metacognitive-calibration-and-task-quality"
  ],
  "intents": [],
  "source_ids": [
    "RS-0A1E473F3B53C2E2"
  ],
  "evidence": [
    {
      "claim": "A 2011 meta-analysis found that delaying judgments of learning substantially improved their relative accuracy compared with immediate judgments (g=0.93 across 112 effect sizes), while the corresponding average memory-performance benefit was much smaller (g=0.08 across 98 effect sizes).",
      "source_id": "RS-0A1E473F3B53C2E2",
      "role": "supports",
      "note": "The outcome is primarily relative monitoring accuracy in memory paradigms; it should not be generalized into a claim that waiting makes every confidence judgment correct.",
      "locator": "Abstract"
    }
  ],
  "use_when": [
    "You have just read, watched or discussed something and it feels clear enough that you are tempted to mark it learned."
  ],
  "avoid_when": [
    "The meta-analysis concerns judgments of learning in memory tasks. Delaying a judgment does not validate complex professional reasoning, and high-confidence retrieval can still be wrong."
  ],
  "example": "After reading an SAP migration note, close it and reconstruct the prerequisite, trigger and failure condition before deciding that you understand it.",
  "check": "Your confidence rating follows an observable retrieval attempt, and the comparison produces either a confirmed answer or a named gap.",
  "steps": [
    "Close or hide the source after a short delay.",
    "Retrieve the main idea, steps or decision rule without reopening it.",
    "Rate confidence only after that attempt.",
    "Compare the attempt with the source and write the specific miss."
  ],
  "sources": [
    {
      "id": "RS-0A1E473F3B53C2E2",
      "title": "The influence of delaying judgments of learning on metacognitive accuracy: a meta-analytic review",
      "url": "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21219059/"
    }
  ],
  "relations": [],
  "collections": [
    {
      "id": "RC-3EBB3946EFB898BD",
      "title": "Calibrate what you know before confidence becomes the plan",
      "url": "/collections/calibrate-what-you-know-before-confidence-becomes-the-plan"
    }
  ]
}