What Repeat Timing Reveals About Later Practice Performance
On the second recorded attempt, accuracy is 63.7% for same-day repeats, 75.7% after 1-6 days, 72.2% after 7-29 days, and 71.2% after 30+ days. Starting accuracy differs sharply across groups, so the chart is not an experiment about the best interval.
What this result includes
- 45,412 same day pairs
- 6,635 1-6 days pairs
- 7,820 7-29 days pairs
- 11,146 30+ days pairs
Same-day repeats begin with the hardest misses
Their first-attempt accuracy is only 21.6%, far below the longer-delay groups. That selection explains why simple gains cannot identify an optimal schedule.
Later performance remains above the first result
Every delay bucket records higher second-attempt accuracy than first-attempt accuracy.
Use delay to test retrieval
A same-day correction can repair the rule; a later unseen question is stronger evidence that the distinction can be retrieved.
First and second accuracy by repeat delay
The first-to-second sequence avoids mixing later exposures into the delay comparison.
Second-attempt results by delay4 rows
Delay is measured between the first and second recorded attempt on the same current active question.
| Delay | Learners | Pairs | First | Second | Wrong to right |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Same day | 575 | 45,412 | 21.6% | 63.7% | 57.7% |
| 1-6 days | 162 | 6,635 | 61.7% | 75.7% | 57.7% |
| 7-29 days | 146 | 7,820 | 62.3% | 72.2% | 52.8% |
| 30+ days | 134 | 11,146 | 67.8% | 71.2% | 52.7% |
What the data cannot establish
The current data cannot prove retention, forgetting, or a causal advantage for one review interval.
Turn the finding into a decision.
Use the report to choose a focused action, then test that decision with current material. The evidence should reduce uncertainty; it should never replace the complete exam outline or promise an official result.