Consistency with reality is in one sense to be consistent with what one might expect from reality. That I have discussed here. But there might also be smaller parts of that consistency, which, according to what I wrte there, is about threeness, so to speak. That is one might expect that two and/or one could be equally important in that sense. The one factor is that in at least one sense, I think, as it can be seen as an invisible factor of anything. I mean that thereby it, like three is so much part of everything that one might view it as very much part of destiny.
Two cannot - as easily at all - be viewed as that much part of everything. However, all three of those simplicities, one two and three, still can be viewed as stable (as they are n more complex than three; as I described where the previous link leads to). In one sense, enhancing either one of those simple-enough-to-be-stable entities with flexibility, thereby, can be seen as an emphasis on correctness - as I have also discussed here.
Another thing I believe there could be to feelings of being error free can be to be into knowing to which extent there is a correctness or not. for this there can be a division into (what I in this blog usually call) homogeneity (i.e. logic and so) -inclined attitudes that associate decisively with (what I here usually call) heterogeneity (i.e. subjectivity and so)-inclined attitudes. That decisions is in numbers that 17 (heterogeneity's first meaning step) is multiplied with 19 (homogeneity's first meaning step). The resultant combination of numbers, the product 323, has its anchorage in the fundamental prelude for hypnotism by repression, which is 256=2^8. That is, mathematically (and by use of my system for defining thoughts and so in counting numbers), we have that 223 (=19*17) is the 256th establishment of counting-number products.
I believe that combination (though I doubt that it always needs to be that strict at all) to be a very important part of our minds' thought structures in general. It can be important, however to find ways to emphasize that combination without becoming too hypnotic about it. This I don't believe most people do.
It is a problem because since eight is the fundamental prelude for heterogeneity, it is much spited by that type of an anchorage. But since the first meaning step for that heterogeneity, together with with that for homogeneity are anchored in such hypnosis, one still looks for heterogeneity, but now only to the extent it can be viewed as meaningful. Concentration on being correct springs from sorting out the creative and subjective associations that don't have to be.