<![CDATA[Describe Task reminders commonly indicate when an assignment is due, but deadline counts alone do not describe the effort required before each due date. Moreover, repeated notifications are not equivalent to retrieval-based spaced review. This study develops an explicit scheduling specification for an existing task-reminder prototype and evaluates a separate executable reference engine. The design combines a recall-dependent review rule, a cumulative deadline-pressure calculation, and an event resolver that distinguishes review prompts from deadline checks. Evaluation comprises 23 functional checks, three scripted review sequences, and 300 synthetic workload scenarios containing 1,150 task records. All functional checks passed. At an assumed capacity of two hours per day and a 72-hour horizon, count-based, aggregate-load, and cumulative deadline-pressure rules flagged 100, 100, and 150 scenarios, respectively. In 50 deliberately constructed early-bottleneck scenarios, only the cumulative rule flagged insufficient capacity before the earliest deadline. Conversely, all 50 light clustered workloads triggered the count rule without exceeding the assumed capacity. An independent exhaustive scheduling oracle agreed with the cumulative rule in all 300 scenarios; agreement was 50.0% for the count rule and 83.3% for the aggregate rule. These results verify logic under the stated capacity model. They do not establish improved retention, productivity, or student well-being. The contribution is a reproducible prototype extension with transparent assumptions and an evidence-based separation of reminder functionality from educational effectiveness.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
