Method
This site corrects overstated claims about memory and note-taking. That obligation applies here first.
How figures are labelled
Every number carries who produced it, when, and what was measured on whom.
A related workplace concept is stealth monitoring software, which offers a useful contrast with the personal knowledge-work problem discussed here.
The third is the one this field drops. A result on nonsense syllables, on vocabulary, on mathematics and on conceptual understanding are four different things, and they are quoted interchangeably. The forgetting curve is the clearest case: a graph about relearning time for meaningless syllables, relabelled as percentage of information retained.
Sample size and population are stated when they are small, which in this literature is often. Two of the foundational results here rest on a single subject.
What counts as strong here
Strongest: replicated experimental findings with published methods — the spacing and testing effects qualify, with their documented exceptions.
For an independent external reference related to this topic, see American Psychological Association.
Useful with caveats: meta-analyses, where the range across studies is reported rather than only the mean.
Weak and still worth citing: single studies, observational work, and consistent practitioner report. Labelled as such.
Not cited: productivity writing that says "studies show" without a traceable source, and any claim whose only support is that a well-known person does it.
Where the evidence stops
A large share of what this site recommends is reasoning from adjacent findings, not direct evidence. Almost nothing specific to personal note archives has been studied — not whether resurfacing works, not whether methods differ, not what interval suits an idea rather than a fact.
Where that is the case it is said in the article, not in a footnote. A recommendation resting on reasoning is still worth making; presenting it as a finding is not.
Why there are no tool reviews
Applications change faster than an article's useful life, and the comparison writing is dominated by people selling one of the options.
More importantly, the tools stopped being the constraint years ago. A site about what to do with notes has no business ranking the places you keep them.
Dating and decay
Anything about an application or a market carries a check date. An article accurate at its stated date and out of date now is not an error; that is what the date is for. An article wrong when published is an error and goes on corrections.
Replication gets the prominence of the original
When a widely-cited result fails to replicate, that appears wherever the result appears.
This has already happened to the most-quoted study in note-taking research, and handling it visibly is a better demonstration of the method than any statement about standards.
External references
External links are included as contextual references. Their presence does not by itself imply ownership, sponsorship, endorsement or an official relationship with the linked site.
The closed product that used to run on this domain is described as historical context and is not presented as an active service.