R7 — Do NOT invoke the Zeigarnik memory claim in client conversations or content; use goal-gradient / Ovsiankina instead — the memory effect failed to replicate in 2025 meta-analysis

Rule: Do NOT cite the "Zeigarnik effect" (the idea that we remember unfinished tasks better) in client conversations or content. It largely fails to replicate (CORRECTION: 2025 meta-analysis (Nature, Humanities & Social Sciences Communications; 38 Zeigarnik studies) — NO overall memory advantage for unfinished tasks (Cohen's dz ≈ 0.15)).

Use goal-gradient (Kivetz, Urminsky & Zheng (2006), Journal of Marketing Research — goal-gradient in consumer contexts: cafe loyalty stamps completed faster as customers neared reward; online raters persist longer near reward) and the Ovsiankina task-resumption effect (Ovsiankina effect — defensible cousin of Zeigarnik: general tendency to RESUME interrupted tasks, confirmed by the 2025 Zeigarnik meta-analysis even as the memory claim failed) instead — both real, both replicated.

Why: The Zeigarnik memory claim has been canonical in marketing copy for decades. The 2025 Nature meta-analysis of 38 studies found no overall memory advantage for unfinished tasks. Same vendor-folklore-discipline pattern as CORRECTION: the viral "60-70% (or 60-80%) of dashboards go unused (Gartner)" stat cannot be traced to any named Gartner report — vendor folklore and The "2× engagement / conversion" interactive-content stat is widely (mis)attributed to "Content Marketing Institute" — no original CMI dataset producing it exists.

How to apply:

• Strike "Zeigarnik" from Candid copy. Replace with goal-gradient / completion-drive language.
• When a client invokes Zeigarnik, briefly note the 2025 meta-analysis result and pivot.
• Save-and-resume features should be justified by Ovsiankina (resumption), not Zeigarnik (memory).