Passing and Being Able and What It Does Not

A formal assessment measures a sample of performance under specific conditions on one occasion. A broader assessment would cost more than it returns. Passing and being able are separate. Both errors occur. Somebody passes and cannot perform reliably in ordinary conditions. Substance without the result. The test is a proxy rather than a measurement. Conditions on the day account for a share of the variance. Sleep, nerves, weather, the particular examiner, which route or task came up. Which is why repeating an assessment frequently produces a different result with no change in ability. The test precedes the skill. Unsupervised repetition in actual conditions. Which nobody assesses - https://stockhouse.com/search?searchtext=assesses . Habits form in this period and some of them are poor. The absence of feedback is the mechanism. One-off testing has this gap. Some fields revisit. The error is not obvious to the first day is the practice day - https://chi-fi.org/how-gamification-can-benefit-insurance-training-and-l... person making it. Nothing internal detects it. An external view. Which becomes unavailable after the formal stage for most people. Asking somebody competent to observe occasionally is available and rarely used. An hour with somebody who knows what they are looking at identifies things years of practice did not. Particularly after an interruption. The long interruption. Not an endpoint. Those who kept improving after the formal stage sought an outside view occasionally.