Activity A2 · Predict-then-Confirm

Inner-Dialogue Shadowing

The audio plays with the clinician's reasoning transcript hidden. At each decision fork the narration pauses — you commit to the next rule-out before it is revealed. You are not recalling facts; you are rehearsing the reasoning voice of a psychologist under uncertainty.

Written by a registered Australian psychologist who has sat these exams Grounded in the NPE Reasoning Engine — READ → DO → CHECK

01 · PREDICT

Anticipate the fork

At each pause, type or select the next defensible step the narrator is about to take.

02 · CONFIRM

Reveal & compare

A miss auto-opens the matching glossary term and pushes the concept to your review queue.

03 · CALIBRATE

Read your fingerprint

See which of the 7 engine steps you reliably nail versus miss — the calibration signal.

Your reasoning fingerprint

Predicted vs actual across the 7-step engine · calibration §6

0/0 forks anticipated

Start a scenario to build your fingerprint

Each fork you attempt is tagged to the engine step it tests. Reliable steps turn green; repeatedly-missed steps turn red and feed your drill.

Meta-rule: READ→DO→CHECK — restraint over thoroughness. The keyed step is almost always the proportionate one, not the maximal one.

Choose an inner-dialogue

7 real reasoning audios · each fork anchored to an NPE ethics/reasoning item

D1 0 forks

—

0:000:00

Ready · the narration will pause at each fork and ask you to predict

⚹ Reasoning trace — revealed step-by-step as you clear each fork

Dialogue complete

0forks anticipated

0%anticipation rate

0confident-wrong (hypercorrection)

⟳ Review queue

Missed forks drop their concept here. Confident-wrong items escalate to the front — hypercorrection §7.

No items yet. A mismatch on any fork adds the matching concept here.