if then trigger plan
This identifier was used as an evidence-review target but was never published as a canonical Brali protocol. It is retained as provenance and deliberately does not link to a public route.
Evidence Ledger · Supports existing guidance · reviewed 2026-09-11
The when and how of planning: Meta-analysis of implementation intentions in 642 tests
The reviewed source is consistent with an existing Brali boundary.
Brali decision: Supports existing guidance. This page summarizes a reviewed evidence boundary; it does not reproduce the source and it does not turn one paper into a universal prescription.
What the source supports
Cue-response implementation intentions are a well-supported self-regulation mechanism; contingent if-then formats performed better on average in the reviewed literature.
What it does not establish
- Every if-then sentence guarantees behavior change.
- Aggregate effect sizes apply to every productivity task.
Important limitations
- The meta-analysis aggregates many populations, goals, outcomes and implementation-intention variants, so its average effect is not a guaranteed effect size for one productivity task or one person.
- Reported moderators such as motivation, contingent if-then form and rehearsal describe variation across the evidence base; they do not establish one universally optimal Brali recipe.
- The evidence supports the implementation-intention mechanism broadly, not fixed numbers of plans, fixed rehearsal counts, fixed time windows, or productivity estimates.
- The reviewed synthesis does not validate Brali's exact wording, interface or reminder implementation as a separately tested intervention.
Source context
The when and how of planning: Meta-analysis of implementation intentions in 642 tests
- Source type: meta-analysis
DOI: 10.1080/10463283.2024.2334563
What this changes in Brali
Editorial note: Merge into existing WOOP/task-initiation surfaces when overlapping rather than creating duplicate content. Keep the executable form explicit: If [observable cue], then I will [specific action].
Use the boundary, not just the headline
When an AI agent or a person retrieves this decision, preserve both the supported claim and the unsupported or overstated claims. Dropping the boundary would turn a reviewed source into a stronger claim than Brali actually maintains.
All Evidence Decisions → · Research & trends → · Machine-readable review →