Plan study time before an exam

Build me a study plan that fits the time I actually have.

Exam or deadline: [DATE]
Today: [DATE]
Subject and what is covered: [SYLLABUS, TOPIC LIST, OR PAST PAPER STRUCTURE]
Format: [MULTIPLE CHOICE, ESSAY, PRACTICAL, ORAL — AND HOW IT IS MARKED]
Hours I can realistically study per week: [BE HONEST, NOT ASPIRATIONAL]
Days that are unavailable: [WORK, TRAVEL, OTHER COMMITMENTS]
Topics I am strong on: [LIST]
Topics I am weak on or have not started: [LIST]
What I have tried that did not work: [IF ANYTHING]

Produce five sections.

1. THE ARITHMETIC — total hours available between now and the date, after removing unavailable days. State the number before anything else.

2. WHAT WILL NOT FIT — if the syllabus does not fit the hours, say so here, plainly, before the plan. Then say what gets dropped or covered shallowly and why that is the right trade given how the exam is marked. Do not build a plan that assumes more hours than I gave you.

3. THE PLAN — week by week, then day by day for the coming week only. Each session has a topic, a length, and a specific activity, never "revise chapter 4". Weight by exam marks and by my weak list, not evenly. Put weak topics early enough to be revisited. Include revisits of earlier material rather than covering each topic once.

4. CHECKPOINTS — at fixed dates, a specific way to test whether the plan is working: a past paper, a timed section, a self-test. Say what result means I am behind, and what to change if I am.

5. THE LAST THREE DAYS — what to do and what to stop doing.

If the honest answer is that I cannot cover this in the time I have, say it in section two and plan for the best achievable outcome instead of the complete one.

Study plans fail before they start, in a way that has nothing to do with discipline. They are built forward from the syllabus — here is everything to cover, divided by the weeks remaining — which quietly assumes the syllabus fits. Usually it does not. You discover that in the final fortnight, when the schedule has silently become a plan you are already behind on, and being behind is what makes people stop following a plan at all.

Working backwards from the date and computing the hours first inverts the whole thing. If the arithmetic does not work you find out on day one, when you can still act on it: drop a topic deliberately, cover something shallowly on purpose, weight towards what the marking scheme actually rewards. A plan that openly excludes something is followed. A plan that pretends everything fits is abandoned.

The instruction to weight by marks and by weakness rather than evenly is doing quiet work too — the default human allocation is by comfort, which means the strong topics get revised again because revising them feels productive.

1. Give honest hours, not intended hours

   Everything downstream is computed from this number. Inflate it by a third and the plan is wrong by a third, which surfaces as being permanently behind rather than as an obviously bad plan.

2. Paste the real syllabus and the mark weighting

   Weighting is what makes the allocation better than even division. If you have past papers, say what actually comes up — the gap between the syllabus and the paper is often large.

3. Read section two before section three

   If it says something will not fit, that is the useful output. Argue with the trade-off if you disagree — but do not skip past it to the schedule, because the schedule is built on it.

4. Replan at each checkpoint with what actually happened

   Tell it the hours you really did and the checkpoint result, and ask for the remaining weeks again. A plan drafted once and followed for six weeks is a plan drafted against assumptions that stopped being true in week two.

• When you do not know the real exam formatThe whole allocation is derived from how marks are awarded. Guessing the format produces a confident plan aimed at the wrong target — find a past paper first.
• For cumulative subjects where topics depend on each otherMaths and anything built in layers cannot be reordered by exam weighting alone. Say explicitly which topics are prerequisites for which, or the plan will schedule something you cannot yet start.
• It cannot judge how quickly you personally learnSession lengths are an estimate from the syllabus, not from you. The first checkpoint is where that estimate meets reality, and the plan should be rebuilt there rather than defended.

• LearningApolloLearn a topic and get quizzed on itExplains something at three levels of detail, then questions you on it and reports which specific part you did not actually have.
• WritingApolloRemove AI tells from a draftRewrites text that reads as machine-written, then lists the specific phrases and structures that gave it away so you stop producing them.
• ResearchRagnarökCompare options and see where they differCompares the options on the things that would actually change your decision, and says separately which differences do not apply to you.
• CodingRagnarökDebug a stack traceTurns an error and its stack trace into an ordered list of what could cause it, each with the specific check that would rule it in or out.