Section 284 of 440
Complete canonical tutorial. This reader section contains the same teaching body as PWR-102 · Working-memory updating. Open the Power dossier.
PWR-102 · Attention & Executive Control
Score last-two updating errors in a completed fictional log
This tutorial teaches how to analyse a completed running-memory record without doing a memory drill. For each five-item sequence, derive the three correct last-two pairs, compare them with the fictional responses, score exact ordered pairs and distinguish order, lost-item and rule-format errors. You will not extend the sequence, practise the task or claim that a score measures intelligence or everyday memory.
Tutorial curriculum · current public edition · Revision 7T · Full Tutorial Edition
Revision 7T · Full Tutorial Edition · complete governed research tutorial
Score last-two updating errors in a completed fictional log
This tutorial teaches how to analyse a completed running-memory record without doing a memory drill. For each five-item sequence, derive the three correct last-two pairs, compare them with the fictional responses, score exact ordered pairs and distinguish order, lost-item and rule-format errors. You will not extend the sequence, practise the task or claim that a score measures intelligence or everyday memory.
Authority and safety
- Governance ceiling: explanation and static fictional record analysis only. Capability self-practice, live administration, protocol delivery and efficacy claims are not authorised until the recorded next_gate adjudication changes.
- Use only the supplied completed fictional sequence/response log. Do not present sequences, rehearse items or run a working-memory exercise.
- The scores cannot establish IQ, ADHD, dementia, learning potential, everyday memory or permanent capacity.
Exact materials
- The eight completed fictional rows below
- A sliding two-box worksheet for deriving expected pairs on paper
- An error log with exact, order, lost-item and rule-format columns
- The staged answer key, kept closed until all 24 fictional responses are scored
Set up in this order
- Write STATIC LOG ANALYSIS ONLY. Do not read the sequences aloud as a task.
- For each row, derive the response after item 3 by taking items 2 and 3 in that order.
- Slide one place: after item 4, the expected pair is items 3 and 4; after item 5, it is items 4 and 5.
- Compare each fictional response with its expected pair. Award 1 only for both exact items in the exact order.
- Mark ORDER when both current items are reversed, LOST-ITEM when an older or substituted item appears, and RULE-FORMAT when the response contains the wrong number of items.
- Add scores within Baseline and One-strategy phases separately. Keep support and burden beside each phase.
- Describe the difference without causal language because phase order, item sets and support differ.
- Finish with the boundary: this is a fictional task record, not a measure of general memory or permission to practise.
Supplied fixture
| Phase | Trial | Reader sequence | Fictional recorded responses | Opportunities |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | B1 | B, K, M, R, T | K–M | M–R | M–T | 3 |
| Baseline | B2 | 7, 2, 9, 4, 6 | 2–9 | 9–4 | 6–4 | 3 |
| Baseline | B3 | sun, leaf, cup, bell, key | leaf–cup | cup–bell | bell–key | 3 |
| Baseline | B4 | triangle, circle, square, star, plus | circle–square | circle–star | plus–star | 3 |
| One strategy | S1 | D, H, P, S, V | H–P | P–S | S–V | 3 |
| One strategy | S2 | 3, 8, 1, 5, 0 | 8–1 | 1–5 | 5–0 | 3 |
| One strategy | S3 | book, moon, pear, drum, sock | moon–pear | pear–drum | sock–drum | 3 |
| One strategy | S4 | diamond, plus, circle, square, triangle | plus–circle | circle–square | square–triangle | 3 |
Check your work only after you finish
Lock every response first. The checking page is separate so the answers are not exposed inside this exercise.
Scoring rule
Award 1 for each exact ordered pair across 24 opportunities. Also classify every zero as order, lost-item or rule-format and report Baseline/12 and One-strategy/12 separately. Award 2 additional points for naming support/order/item-set confounds and the non-diagnostic boundary: 26 points total. No self-practice or efficacy claim is authorised.
Worked example
- For B2, slide across 7, 2, 9, 4, 6 to derive 2–9, 9–4 and 4–6.
- The fictional responses are 2–9, 9–4 and 6–4.
- The first two each earn 1. The last contains the correct current items in reverse order, so it earns 0 and one ORDER mark.
- B2 therefore scores 2/3. Preserve the error type rather than reporting only the total.
- Across the supplied log, baseline is 8/12 and the supported phase is 11/12; report +3 descriptively and name the changed support, order and items.
Correct result: The method turns a completed fictional record into exact and error-type scores. It does not train working memory or support a personal-capacity claim.
Right and wrong
| Moment | Right / safer | Wrong / riskier | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deriving a pair | Slide one item at a time and keep original order. | Reuse the first two items after every cue. | The required pair changes with each new item. |
| Reversal | Score 0 and mark ORDER. | Give credit because both items appear. | Order is part of the declared rule. |
| Comparing phases | Report +3 with support, order and item-set differences. | Claim the support expanded memory capacity. | The supplied record is descriptive and confounded. |
| Authority | Analyse the completed log only. | Read new sequences to a learner for practice. | Guide permission is not ready. |
Common mistakes and fixes
| Mistake | Fix |
|---|---|
| The keyed pairs are shown before analysis. | Keep the staged answer key closed until every fictional response is scored. |
| A reversed pair earns partial credit. | Use exact 1/0 scoring and retain the ORDER label. |
| Supported and unsupported totals are pooled. | Report each phase separately with its support. |
| The static worksheet becomes a drill. | Stop at record analysis; no capability self-practice is authorised. |
Evidence boundary
What the tutorial may—and may not—claim.
Supportable claim
Working-memory updating tasks are trainable as tasks, but strong controlled studies do not show broader cognitive-ability transfer.
Measurement boundary
Accuracy and load on a declared updating task cannot establish intelligence, learning capacity or everyday memory; independent construct measures are required.
Expand your mental RAM
MetricPerformance on the trained task and independent functional memory outcomes after delay
BoundaryTask practice cannot establish IQ, general cognition or dementia prevention.
Negative and limiting findings
- A randomized placebo-controlled study found no positive transfer from 20 dual-n-back sessions to any measured cognitive ability.
Prohibited wording
- Increase IQ with n-back
- Expand working memory permanently
- Prevent dementia with brain games
- External memory weakens the brain
Direct source register
Evidence that supports—and limits—the route.
Thomas S Redick; Zach Shipstead; Tyler L Harrison; Kenny L Hicks; David E Fried; David Z Hambrick; Michael J Kane; Randall W Engle · 2013 · PRIMARY_RESEARCH
This source is bound only to existence, limiting finding, trainability, transfer within the declared PWR-102 dossier. It does not independently authorise universal efficacy, far transfer, diagnosis, clinical use or unsafe progression.
Adrian M Owen; Adam Hampshire; Jessica A Grahn; Robert Stenton; Said Dajani; Alistair S Burns; Robert J Howard; Clive G Ballard · 2010 · PRIMARY_RESEARCH
This source is bound only to existence, limiting finding, trainability, transfer within the declared PWR-102 dossier. It does not independently authorise universal efficacy, far transfer, diagnosis, clinical use or unsafe progression.
Amélie Boujut; L V Verty; Sotirios Maltezos; Maxime Lussier; Samia Mellah; Louis Bherer; Sylvie Belleville · 2020 · PRIMARY_RESEARCH
This source is bound only to existence, limiting finding, trainability, transfer within the declared PWR-102 dossier. It does not independently authorise universal efficacy, far transfer, diagnosis, clinical use or unsafe progression.
Tutorial delivery controls
Learn, adapt, troubleshoot and resume
Progress is saved only in this browser on this device.
Step-by-step learner mode
Each activity includes its success check, a nearby accessible alternative and an “I’m stuck” correction path. Alternatives preserve the target where possible; when they change the task, Titan labels them as related rather than equivalent.
Write STATIC LOG ANALYSIS ONLY
Write STATIC LOG ANALYSIS ONLY. Do not read the sequences aloud as a task.
“Write STATIC LOG ANALYSIS ONLY” creates the auditable value, condition or statement needed for the tutorial’s later comparison and conclusion.
A legible entry directly completes “Write STATIC LOG ANALYSIS ONLY” and records the requested condition, decision or boundary without adding a new claim.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Write STATIC LOG ANALYSIS ONLY. Do not read the sequences aloud as a task.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The static worksheet becomes a drill.
Correction: Stop at record analysis; no capability self-practice is authorised.
Stop / get help: Titan teaches a complete Power-specific research method because operational capability practice is not currently justified. Stop if the declared configuration cannot be maintained, uncertainty becomes material, adverse effects appear, or qualified authority is required.
For each row, derive the response after item 3 by taking items…
For each row, derive the response after item 3 by taking items 2 and 3 in that order.
Keep this exact Working-memory updating action explicit and reviewable: “For each row, derive the response after item 3 by taking items 2 and 3 in that order.”
Evidence of completion shows the learner followed this exact instruction without adding an unstated step: “For each row, derive the response after item 3 by taking items 2 and 3 in that order.”
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “For each row, derive the response after item 3 by taking items 2 and 3 in that order.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “For each row, derive the response after item 3 by taking items 2 and 3 in that order.” does not yet meet this declared check: Evidence of completion shows the learner followed this exact instruction without adding an unstated step: “For each row, derive the response after item 3 by taking items 2 and 3 in that order.”
Correction: Return to the start of “For each row, derive the response after item 3 by taking items…”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “Evidence of completion shows the learner followed this exact instruction without adding an unstated step: “For each row, derive the response after item 3 by taking items 2 and 3 in that order.””
Stop / get help: Titan teaches a complete Power-specific research method because operational capability practice is not currently justified. Stop if the declared configuration cannot be maintained, uncertainty becomes material, adverse effects appear, or qualified authority is required.
Slide one place: after item 4, the expected pair is items 3…
Slide one place: after item 4, the expected pair is items 3 and 4; after item 5, it is items 4 and 5.
“Slide one place: after item 4, the expected pair is items 3 and 4” fixes the exact Working-memory updating configuration or decision before later observations are compared.
The learner can verify “Slide one place: after item 4, the expected pair is items 3 and 4” from the declared materials, position or recorded choice before continuing.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Slide one place: after item 4, the expected pair is items 3 and 4; after item 5, it is items 4 and 5.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “Slide one place: after item 4, the expected pair is items 3 and 4; after item 5, it is items 4 and 5.” does not yet meet this declared check: The learner can verify “Slide one place: after item 4, the expected pair is items 3 and 4” from the declared materials, position or recorded choice before continuing.
Correction: Return to the start of “Slide one place: after item 4, the expected pair is items 3…”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “The learner can verify “Slide one place: after item 4, the expected pair is items 3 and 4” from the declared materials, position or recorded choice before continuing.”
Stop / get help: Titan teaches a complete Power-specific research method because operational capability practice is not currently justified. Stop if the declared configuration cannot be maintained, uncertainty becomes material, adverse effects appear, or qualified authority is required.
Compare each fictional response with its expected pair
Compare each fictional response with its expected pair. Award 1 only for both exact items in the exact order.
“Compare each fictional response with its expected pair” keeps this lesson inside its declared record-analysis boundary and prevents the supplied scenario from being mistaken for physical practice.
The output directly answers “Compare each fictional response with its expected pair”, names the relevant distinction and stays within the supplied record.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Compare each fictional response with its expected pair. Award 1 only for both exact items in the exact order.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The keyed pairs are shown before analysis.
Correction: Keep the staged answer key closed until every fictional response is scored.
Possible snag: A reversed pair earns partial credit.
Correction: Use exact 1/0 scoring and retain the ORDER label.
Stop / get help: Titan teaches a complete Power-specific research method because operational capability practice is not currently justified. Stop if the declared configuration cannot be maintained, uncertainty becomes material, adverse effects appear, or qualified authority is required.
Mark ORDER when both current items are reversed, LOST-ITEM when an older…
Mark ORDER when both current items are reversed, LOST-ITEM when an older or substituted item appears, and RULE-FORMAT when the response contains the wrong number of items.
Keep this exact Working-memory updating action explicit and reviewable: “Mark ORDER when both current items are reversed, LOST-ITEM when an older or substituted item appears, and RULE-FORMAT when the response contains the wrong number of items.”
Evidence of completion shows the learner followed this exact instruction without adding an unstated step: “Mark ORDER when both current items are reversed, LOST-ITEM when an older or substituted item appears, and RULE-FORMAT when the response contains the wrong number of items.”
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Mark ORDER when both current items are reversed, LOST-ITEM when an older or substituted item appears, and RULE-FORMAT when the response contains the wrong number of items.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “Mark ORDER when both current items are reversed, LOST-ITEM when an older or substituted item appears, and RULE-FORMAT when the response contains the wrong number of items.” does not yet meet this declared check: Evidence of completion shows the learner followed this exact instruction without adding an unstated step: “Mark ORDER when both current items are reversed, LOST-ITEM when an older or substituted item appears, and RULE-FORMAT when the response contains the wrong number of items.”
Correction: Return to the start of “Mark ORDER when both current items are reversed, LOST-ITEM when an older…”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “Evidence of completion shows the learner followed this exact instruction without adding an unstated step: “Mark ORDER when both current items are reversed, LOST-ITEM when an older or substituted item appears, and RULE-FORMAT when the response contains the wrong number of items.””
Stop / get help: Titan teaches a complete Power-specific research method because operational capability practice is not currently justified. Stop if the declared configuration cannot be maintained, uncertainty becomes material, adverse effects appear, or qualified authority is required.
Add scores within Baseline and One-strategy phases separately
Add scores within Baseline and One-strategy phases separately. Keep support and burden beside each phase.
Keep this exact Working-memory updating action explicit and reviewable: “Add scores within Baseline and One-strategy phases separately. Keep support and burden beside each phase.”
Evidence of completion shows the learner followed this exact instruction without adding an unstated step: “Add scores within Baseline and One-strategy phases separately. Keep support and burden beside each phase.”
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Add scores within Baseline and One-strategy phases separately. Keep support and burden beside each phase.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: Supported and unsupported totals are pooled.
Correction: Report each phase separately with its support.
Stop / get help: Titan teaches a complete Power-specific research method because operational capability practice is not currently justified. Stop if the declared configuration cannot be maintained, uncertainty becomes material, adverse effects appear, or qualified authority is required.
Describe the difference without causal language because phase order, item sets and…
Describe the difference without causal language because phase order, item sets and support differ.
Keep this exact Working-memory updating action explicit and reviewable: “Describe the difference without causal language because phase order, item sets and support differ.”
Evidence of completion shows the learner followed this exact instruction without adding an unstated step: “Describe the difference without causal language because phase order, item sets and support differ.”
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Describe the difference without causal language because phase order, item sets and support differ.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “Describe the difference without causal language because phase order, item sets and support differ.” does not yet meet this declared check: Evidence of completion shows the learner followed this exact instruction without adding an unstated step: “Describe the difference without causal language because phase order, item sets and support differ.”
Correction: Return to the start of “Describe the difference without causal language because phase order, item sets and…”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “Evidence of completion shows the learner followed this exact instruction without adding an unstated step: “Describe the difference without causal language because phase order, item sets and support differ.””
Stop / get help: Titan teaches a complete Power-specific research method because operational capability practice is not currently justified. Stop if the declared configuration cannot be maintained, uncertainty becomes material, adverse effects appear, or qualified authority is required.
Finish with the boundary: this is a fictional task record, not a…
Finish with the boundary: this is a fictional task record, not a measure of general memory or permission to practise.
“Finish with the boundary: this is a fictional task record, not a measure of general memory or permission to practise” keeps this lesson inside its declared record-analysis boundary and prevents the supplied scenario from being mistaken for physical practice.
A legible entry directly completes “Finish with the boundary: this is a fictional task record, not a measure of general memory or permission to practise” and records the requested condition, decision or boundary without adding a new claim.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Finish with the boundary: this is a fictional task record, not a measure of general memory or permission to practise.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “Finish with the boundary: this is a fictional task record, not a measure of general memory or permission to practise.” does not yet meet this declared check: A legible entry directly completes “Finish with the boundary: this is a fictional task record, not a measure of general memory or permission to practise” and records the requested condition, decision or boundary without adding a new claim.
Correction: Return to the start of “Finish with the boundary: this is a fictional task record, not a…”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “A legible entry directly completes “Finish with the boundary: this is a fictional task record, not a measure of general memory or permission to practise” and records the requested condition, decision or boundary without adding a new claim.”
Stop / get help: Titan teaches a complete Power-specific research method because operational capability practice is not currently justified. Stop if the declared configuration cannot be maintained, uncertainty becomes material, adverse effects appear, or qualified authority is required.
Correct versus incorrect execution
These accessible process diagrams are built from the tutorial’s own right/wrong teaching. They are not anatomical illustrations and do not add technique beyond the canonical tutorial.
Slide one item at a time and keep original order.
Reuse the first two items after every cue.
Score 0 and mark ORDER.
Give credit because both items appear.
Report +3 with support, order and item-set differences.
Claim the support expanded memory capacity.
Analyse the completed log only.
Read new sequences to a learner for practice.
Method-structure checklist
10 of 10 structural checks present
- Ordered, Power-specific instructions — present
- Every activity has a success check — present
- Materials or supplied records are declared — present
- Measurement or assessment rule is present — present
- Tutorial-specific troubleshooting is present — present
- Stopping or escalation boundary is present — present
- Every activity has an adjacent alternative — present
- Correct-versus-incorrect comparison is present — present
- Evidence context is bound to the Power record — present
- Planning metadata is present — present
The method-readiness band and presence checklist assess tutorial presentation and are separate from evidence quality for the underlying Power. They are automated editorial aids, not human approval.
Manual editorial sign-off: Pending. This tutorial must not display a human-approved state until an identified editor signs the exact content hash.