What changed after source review?

Replay the existing Rosenshine–Meister dose correction across stale consumers; narrow a criticism after reading Reynolds/Hattan/Markham in full publisher HTML.

No new reading of the full final 1994 Rosenshine–Meister article. The 1993 report and 1994 abstract remain distinct. Raw Hirsch rhetoric is preserved.

Strategy teaching helps; the best use of the next hour remains open

The earlier detailed D1 judgments already separated strategy efficacy from dose and allocation. The opening, critic summary and derivative source metadata had not caught up. This replay corrects those consumers without inventing a new scientific result.

Reviewed Rosenshine–Meister source → D1 C6: efficacy and dose → D1 I6: allocation → D1 C4: marginal return.

The independent knowledge effect remains supported. D2’s programme findings and D4’s value and authority judgments were reviewed for impact and retained: neither rests on an established strategy plateau.

A stronger source basis requires a narrower criticism

The full publisher HTML of Reynolds, Hattan and Markham was read. Its critique of baseball measures warrants caution about generalizing to curricular knowledge. It does not isolate a lexical causal mechanism. The critic record now makes that distinction; D1’s construct objection remains.

Earlier and revised records

Earlier wording is retained here as history, not current appraisal.

dossiers/d1-background-knowledge/dossier.json · /summary/answer

Earlier

Relevant prior knowledge has a strong effect when it matches the text. The typical magnitude varies, broad transfer is graded, and the evidence does not establish that no domain-general comprehension process exists. Bounded returns to repeated strategy practice support a practical allocation argument, but neither that result nor the cognitive mechanism by itself selects one common curriculum.

Revised 2026-09-06

Relevant prior knowledge has a strong effect when it matches the text. The typical magnitude varies, broad transfer is graded, and the evidence does not establish that no domain-general comprehension process exists. Explicit strategy instruction can help, but its dose curve and its return per hour relative to knowledge building remain undetermined; neither finding selects one common curriculum.

dossiers/d1-background-knowledge/dossier.json · /summary/scope

Earlier

This dossier covers mechanism, matched-topic effects, magnitude, measurement, transfer, general-process claims, bounded strategy returns and the immediate curriculum bridge; it defers whole-program effectiveness to Dossier 2 and curricular selection, authority, Bildung and Didaktik to Dossier 4.

Revised 2026-09-06

This dossier covers mechanism, matched-topic effects, magnitude, measurement, transfer, general-process claims, strategy efficacy and unknown dose and the immediate curriculum bridge; it defers whole-program effectiveness to Dossier 2 and curricular selection, authority, Bildung and Didaktik to Dossier 4.

dossiers/d1-background-knowledge/dossier.json · /summary/scope_detail/includes/5

Earlier

Bounded strategy returns

Revised 2026-09-06

Strategy efficacy and unknown dose

dossiers/d1-background-knowledge/dossier.json · /evidence_appraisals/S0020/relation/0/type

Earlier

supports_bounded_returns

Revised 2026-09-06

reports_dose_claim_not_causal_test

dossiers/d1-background-knowledge/dossier.json · /evidence_appraisals/S0020/can_establish

Earlier

The reviewed literature is consistent with bounded benefit and supports brief explicit strategy instruction.

Revised 2026-09-06

The commentary recommends explicit brief strategy teaching and reports a saturation interpretation of prior reviews; it is not an experimental dose comparison.

dossiers/d1-background-knowledge/sources.json · /sources/7/books_n

Earlier

Revised 2026-09-06

dossiers/d1-background-knowledge/sources.json · /sources/7/effect

Earlier

Median effect size .32 on standardized tests and .88 on experimenter-developed tests. SECONDARY-VERIFIED — the primary article could not be opened; whether these are Cohen's d is unverified.

Revised 2026-09-06

The 1994 journal abstract reports median effects of .32 on standardized tests and .88 on experimenter-developed tests. The full 1993 author report and tables were read; it covers 19 studies, whereas the 1994 abstract reports 16. The study-pool crosswalk remains unchecked.

dossiers/d1-background-knowledge/sources.json · /sources/7/limits

Earlier

Primary not read. Review drew substantially on unpublished dissertations.

Revised 2026-09-06

Full 1993 author report and 1994 journal abstract read; full final 1994 journal article not read. Heterogeneous study-level session counts and significance categories do not identify a causal dose curve.

dossiers/d1-background-knowledge/sources.json · /sources/7/status

Earlier

established, OVER-READ ON DOSE. Verbatim (Blazer 2007, reporting the review): 'found no relationship between the number of sessions and the significance of results. The number of instructional sessions in the reviewed studies ranged from six to 100.' A null on dose is not a plateau. Contrary primary evidence: Westera & Moore (1995) — 95% of an extended (12-16 session) group gained vs 47% short (6-8) and 45% control; Takala (2006) — 10 sessions less effective than 15. The .32/.88 split IS a genuine construct-validity problem for the strategy literature and is Hirsch's point to make.

Revised 2026-09-06

Strategy efficacy and measurement sensitivity supported; causal dose plateau and marginal instructional allocation undetermined. Secondary reports of later dose comparisons remain secondary, not newly primary-verified.

dossiers/d1-background-knowledge/sources.json · /sources/7/verified_by

Earlier

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ500529 (16 studies); https://api.crossref.org/works/10.3102/00346543064004479; https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED541081.pdf (Blazer 2007 READ — the verbatim dose sentence and Westera & Moore figures); https://blog.soton.ac.uk/edpsych/files/2021/06/Reciprocal-teaching-2019-Kirsty-Russell.pdf (READ — .88/.32 split, Takala). NOTE: resolutions.json resolved rosenshine_direct_instruction to 10.1007/bf00364747, a paper on HLA-DQ polymorphism — clearly wrong.

Revised 2026-09-06

Full author report: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED356456.pdf (1993, 19 studies); journal abstract: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ500529 (1994, 16 studies). Review replayed 2026-09-06; no final-article full-text upgrade.

dossiers/d1-background-knowledge/sources.json · /sources/8/design

Earlier

Narrative review of eight prior quantitative reviews of reading-comprehension-strategy instruction. NOT primary research and NOT a formal meta-analysis — the registry's kind:study is wrong.

Revised 2026-09-06

Commentary synthesizing eight prior quantitative reviews of reading-comprehension-strategy instruction; not a primary experiment or formal meta-analysis. Its saturation claim is an interpretation, not an experimentally identified dose curve.

data/theses/canonical_propositions.json · /propositions/0/notes/evidence

Earlier

Would be supported by: comparable readers diverging on texts as a function of topic knowledge (Recht & Leslie baseball study); comprehension-strategy instruction plateauing after a few weeks (Rosenshine); failure of general critical-thinking programmes to transfer. Would be undermined by: durable, transfer-general gains from strategy or thinking-skills instruction with knowledge held constant.

Revised 2026-09-06

Would be supported by: comparable readers diverging on texts as a function of topic knowledge (Recht & Leslie baseball study); controlled evidence limiting dose and transfer from strategy instruction; failure of general critical-thinking programmes to transfer. The reviewed Rosenshine–Meister evidence does not establish a causal plateau or the absence of general comprehension processes. Would be undermined by: durable, transfer-general gains from strategy or thinking-skills instruction with knowledge held constant.

data/critics/critics.json · /9/availability_note

Earlier

Open article; relevant publisher-hosted excerpts were reviewed, but the article was not read end to end.

Revised 2026-09-06

Full publisher open-access HTML read from introduction through conclusion, including methods and Tables 1–4, on 2026-09-06. Companion remains abstract-only.

data/critics/critics.json · /9/provenance_sources/0/external_url

Earlier

https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rrq.575

Revised 2026-09-06

https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/rrq.575

data/critics/critics.json · /9/provenance_sources/0/access_basis

Earlier

excerpt

Revised 2026-09-06

full-text

data/critics/critics.json · /9/provenance_sources/0/review_basis

Earlier

Relevant publisher-hosted sections and metadata were reviewed; this was not an end-to-end full-text read, so page-specific quotation claims remain unverified.

Revised 2026-09-06

Full publisher HTML read 2026-09-06, introduction through conclusion including methods and Tables 1–4. First online 2024-09-05; publisher records an Alexander-citation correction on 2024-09-13. Methods RQ2, Table 2, Analyzing Specificity/Table 3, and Internal and External Validity Tradeoffs support construct and generalization cautions, not an isolated lexical causal explanation.

data/critics/critics.json · /9/one_line_summary

Earlier

Reviews the 19 'baseball studies' (1978-2018) underlying the canonical knowledge-beats-skill demonstration and finds the knowledge measures are vocabulary/trivia-weighted and gender-loaded -- a construct-validity attack on Hirsch's showpiece evidence, not a denial that knowledge matters.

Revised 2026-09-06

The review identifies restricted knowledge measures and comprehension texts in baseball studies, warranting caution about generalizing to curricular knowledge; it does not isolate a lexical causal mechanism or deny that knowledge matters.

data/critics/critics.json · /19/venue

Earlier

American Educator (see also Willingham, 2006)

Revised 2026-09-06

Teachers College Record, content ID 17701 (companion: Willingham 2006, American Educator)

data/critics/critics.json · /19/doi_or_url

Earlier

aft.org (American Educator archive)

Revised 2026-09-06

http://www.danielwillingham.com/uploads/5/0/0/7/5007325/willingham&lovette_2014_can_reading_comprehension_be_taught_.pdf

data/critics/critics.json · /19/availability_note

Earlier

Quoted via the dossier's own prior citations (Card 8); direct re-fetch of the AFT archive page failed twice in this session (404, then wrong-issue redirect) and was not pursued further.

Revised 2026-09-06

The full 2014 commentary and 2006 companion were read in the existing D1 primary-source review; the 2026-09-06 replay carries that access boundary into this profile.

data/critics/critics.json · /19/one_line_summary

Earlier

Answers its own title question 'not really, beyond a point' -- and then recommends teaching the strategies anyway, briefly. Hirsch quotes the plateau finding and drops the recommendation, converting a bounded-returns finding into 'useless'; Hirsch elsewhere credits Willingham with restraining his own 'excessive absolutism'.

Revised 2026-09-06

The commentary claims saturation and recommends explicit brief strategy instruction. Hirsch invokes that saturation claim and escalates it into uselessness, omitting the recommendation. Neither the commentary nor the reviewed Rosenshine–Meister comparison identifies a causal dose plateau; Hirsch elsewhere credits Willingham with restraining his excessive absolutism.

data/critics/positions.json · /39/claim

Earlier

Across 19 'baseball studies' (1978-2018), 13 used the same two knowledge measures, which 'focused heavily on vocabulary and baseball trivia', making the canonical knowledge-beats-skill demonstration closer to a lexical-access effect on a jargon-loaded text than evidence for broad background knowledge.

Revised 2026-09-06

The baseball measures and comprehension texts provide a restricted test of the knowledge–comprehension relationship; extending those findings to broad curricular knowledge requires additional evidence.

data/critics/positions.json · /39/quote

Earlier

focused heavily on vocabulary and baseball trivia

Revised 2026-09-06

these results may not generalize to school texts

data/critics/positions.json · /39/quote_source

Earlier

dossier-draft

Revised 2026-09-06

reynolds2025-primary · Analyzing Specificity, discussion following Table 3; publisher HTML read 2026-09-06

data/critics/positions.json · /62/claim

Earlier

Willingham & Lovette answer 'Can reading comprehension be taught?' with 'not really, beyond a point' -- but then recommend still teaching the strategies, briefly; Hirsch quotes the plateau and drops the recommendation.

Revised 2026-09-06

Willingham and Lovette report a saturation interpretation while recommending explicit brief strategy instruction. Hirsch invokes the saturation claim and drops the attached recommendation; the commentary does not experimentally identify the dose curve.

data/critics/positions.json · /62/hirsch_response/quote

Earlier

Hirsch treats the plateau citation (wkm:ch1_E20) and escalates it (wkm:ch1_C87) into a claim that strategy instruction is useless, dropping Willingham's own recommendation to still teach strategies briefly.

Revised 2026-09-06

Hirsch invokes the commentary’s saturation claim (wkm:ch1_E20) and escalates it (wkm:ch1_C87) into uselessness, omitting its recommendation to teach strategies briefly. This describes his evidential use, not an established dose finding.

dossiers/d1-background-knowledge/dossier.json · /meta/version

Earlier

0.1.0

Revised 2026-09-06

0.1.1

dossiers/d1-background-knowledge/dossier.json · /meta/updated

Earlier

2026-08-24

Revised 2026-09-06

2026-09-06

dossiers/d1-background-knowledge/dossier.json · /review/date

Earlier

2026-08-24

Revised 2026-09-06

2026-09-06

dossiers/d1-background-knowledge/sources.json · /sources/7/availability_note

Earlier

Not recorded

Revised 2026-09-06

The final 1994 article is represented by its public journal abstract only. The earlier 1993 technical report is openly available and was read in full; availability of that report does not establish full access to the journal revision.

Download the before/after record and retained-artifact hashes