[d110af5ccf]

> It's not at all clear that "restarting with a small subset of cards" is better.

Sure it is. It could grow as quickly as allowed for given the time invested by the user. That could mean a return to the full subset within the span of a single day, or it could mean many months. Perhaps even never. It all depends on time invested by the user going forward. Starving regular review for the sake of verification is an example of an algorithm failing when faced with the real world.

At minimum it is clear from what was said that (better) prioritization between conflicting goals is needed. That somewhat matches my own experience with it from years ago. The algorithm was simply not flexible enough to fit my own usage patterns. In other words I was not part of the target audience, which I found frustrating because I very easily could have been.

[zozbot234]

Keep in mind that any unverified cards have been "starved of regular review" for longer than any of the cards that have been shown at least once already. It makes sense to prioritize them, at least once they've become "due" for review. The fact that some users might find this unfamiliar or even confusing (because it only happens after you've taken a break and then resumed using Anki, so quite rarely) doesn't make it broken.