0001: Take the document, not the technique
Decision: this repository covers how study documents are written and checked; whether a learning technique works stays in reader-ergonomics and is linked from here.
Status: accepted, 2026-10-29. Shape: decision record.
Context
- reader-ergonomics already reviews learning science: about 60 sources in eight strands, from retrieval and spacing to worked examples and multimedia (learning science).
- Two of its principles apply only to material meant to be learned: retrieval prompts, and worked examples with subgoals. They hold for a note or a report as well, so they belong to the standard.
- The genre's own sources were cited nowhere in the family on 2026-10-29: how a question is written, how a card is formulated, how objectives are aligned with what is tested.
Decision
- In: written material studied alone, and the questions inside it; its shapes; the checks a program can run on it. Material written by a teacher, and material learners write for themselves.
- Out: the effects of the techniques, teaching live, scheduling algorithms, tutoring systems, exam statistics, and programme design. The README gives the reason for each.
- A rule that turns out to hold for any reader, not only a learner, moves up to the standard, as decision 0001 of reader-ergonomics requires.
Consequences
- Each review here starts by reading the standard's learning-science review, and reviews only what it lacks.
- A reader who wants the effect sizes follows a link to the standard; each review gives a one-line reminder where it needs one.
- The boundary will be tested by the shapes: a block whose only reason is an effect the standard holds is linked to that principle, not argued again.