Once studying went fully digital, paper still holds three places with real evidence: reading (paper over screens at g ≈ −0.21 across 171,055 participants, widening to 0.35–0.48 when scrolling is required), writing while you answer (on screen, harder questions draw less scratch work, not more), and drawing (45% recall against 20% for writing). The one claim most people lean on, that handwritten notes stick better, spans −0.008 to +0.248 across four meta-analyses with no consensus.
The single most-cited meta-analysis on ChatGPT in education (g = 0.867, ~500k views) was retracted by Nature in April 2026. But the positive finding was not overturned — the issue is that it measures performance while the AI is available. Bastani's PNAS RCT measured something else: +48% accuracy during practice with GPT-4, then 17% below never-users once access was removed.
Dunlosky's 2013 review rated 10 study techniques; only self-testing and distributed practice earned 'high utility'. But a 2026 systematic review puts the effect at 0.22–0.46, and Pan & Rickard's transfer meta-analysis finds 'no positive transfer' once publication bias is corrected — making the premise in the framework's own name the piece that tests worst.
24 evergreen books across productivity, life design, brain science, psychology, and money — selected using actual discussion evidence from Threads, Dcard, PTT, and Vocus between late 2025 and mid-2026. Strongest signal: Rewire by Nicole Vignola hit top 3 on both Eslite and Books.com.tw H1 2026 bestseller charts.