Kahneman and Klein (2009) argue expert intuition is trustworthy only in regular, high-feedback environments — elsewhere, confident intuition becomes systematic error

Daniel Kahneman and Gary Klein's 2009 American Psychologist paper "Conditions for Intuitive Expertise: A Failure to Disagree" is reported (via a thin secondary carrier — see audit status) to argue that confident expert intuition is reliable under exactly two conditions: the environment is regular enough to contain learnable structure, and the expert receives rapid, unambiguous feedback on judgments over time (as in chess or firefighting). Outside those conditions — in irregular, low-feedback, "low validity" domains — confident intuition is not merely unreliable, it becomes systematic error, and subjective confidence provides no signal to distinguish the two cases.

This is the scope condition on Simon's "intuition is recognition" claim: recognition is only trustworthy where the cues being recognized were trained under conditions with feedback. It is the mechanism used in observation-simon-intuition-framework-diagnoses-perceptron-sterility-conjecture to argue that an expert's confident judgment about an open, un-run-yet research question is a textbook low-validity case.