{
  "schema": "vedokrok.public-item.v1",
  "release_id": "MHC-RPUB-20260920-75ad787a",
  "url": "/knowledge/separate-better-monitoring-from-better-performance",
  "id": "MHC-D-RESEARCH-1250",
  "version": "0.1.0",
  "title": "Separate better monitoring from better performance",
  "summary": "Knowing where the holes are is valuable. It is not the same as filling them.",
  "kind": "heuristic",
  "body": "Track two outcomes separately: monitoring quality and task performance. The delayed-judgment meta-analysis found a large gain in relative monitoring accuracy but only a small average gain in memory performance. That distinction matters beyond learning: a better review can show you what needs work without doing the work for you. After the diagnosis, require a separate practice, correction or task result.",
  "limits": [
    "The cited effect-size contrast comes from memory research. The general separation is an editorial reasoning principle, not a claim that the same numerical gap applies to work tasks."
  ],
  "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": [
    "A reflection, confidence check or learning dashboard feels more precise and you are about to treat that precision as evidence that the underlying skill improved."
  ],
  "avoid_when": [
    "The cited effect-size contrast comes from memory research. The general separation is an editorial reasoning principle, not a claim that the same numerical gap applies to work tasks."
  ],
  "example": "A mock interview rubric may reveal that your examples are weak. The rubric has improved monitoring; a later interview-style answer has to show whether the examples actually improved.",
  "check": "Your review names one monitoring measure and one independent performance measure, and you do not report the first as proof of the second.",
  "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": [
    {
      "from": "MHC-D-RESEARCH-1250",
      "to": "MHC-D-RESEARCH-1247",
      "type": "useful_with",
      "url": "/knowledge/delay-confidence-until-after-a-retrieval-attempt"
    }
  ],
  "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"
    }
  ]
}