the knowledge platform

the question miss taxonomy: fix the system, not your motivation

a clinician-grade framework for why you miss questions — and the exact remediation strategy for each miss type.

Most revision fails because people treat every miss as the same: “I need to study more.” In reality, misses come from different failure modes, and each requires a different fix. A miss taxonomy lets you debug performance like an engineer — and it stops you wasting hours on the wrong remediation.

The Bottom Line

  • Classify misses into a small set of types (knowledge, misread, reasoning, timing, threshold, bias).
  • Each type has a best remediation (prompt, drill, script, or reading discipline).
  • Track trends weekly and design your next week around the dominant miss type.
1

Type 1 — Knowledge gap

You genuinely didn’t know the rule. Fix: one narrow prompt + one supporting resource link. Retest at Day 2/7/14.
2

Type 2 — Misread / missed clue

You had the knowledge but failed to notice a key cue. Fix: slow down, highlight triggers, practise ‘stem scanning’ scripts, and run timed blocks with deliberate reading discipline.
3

Type 3 — Wrong rule / reasoning error

You applied the wrong heuristic (e.g., wrong severity scale, wrong next step). Fix: write a ‘when X, do Y because Z’ rule + a counterexample prompt.
4

Type 4 — Threshold confusion

You know the concept but not the number. Fix: isolate into threshold prompts (single cue → single number → single action) and drill weekly.
5

Type 5 — Timing / triage failure

You ran out of time or guessed poorly. Fix: timed blocks, two-pass strategy, and a rule for when to cut losses and move on.
6

Type 6 — Cognitive bias / pattern trap

Anchoring, availability, premature closure. Fix: build ‘anti-trap prompts’ and practise mixed blocks that force discrimination between near neighbours.
1

2

3

4

Practice

Test your knowledge

Apply this concept immediately with a high-yield question block from the iatroX Q-Bank.

Generate Questions
SourceDunlosky et al. (2013): Evidence on effective techniques (PubMed)
Open Link
SourceRoediger & Karpicke (2006): Testing effect (PubMed)
Open Link