Abstract
<jats:p>In the current educational paradigm, summative assessment is often perceived as a “pedagogical verdict” that reinforces math anxiety and blocks students' cognitive progress. This article proposes a rethinking of the role of summative assessment, demonstrating how traditional summative assessments can become powerful tools for building mathematical resilience and metacognition. Based on the results of a year-long pedagogical experiment involving 72 students aged 10-12, the authors demonstrate that delaying grade assignment in favor of qualitative feedback allows students to exit the "red zone" of panic and remain in the "growth zone" even during summative testing. The use of proprietary tools (the feedback table and the corrective sheet) facilitated a qualitative leap in self-regulation development: 80% of respondents learned to systematically analyze their own errors. The article reveals the deep psychological mechanism of an assessment's impact on motivation: it was established that immediate knowledge of a grade becomes a "terminal point" for 40% of students, whereas qualitative comments without a numerical equivalent stimulate internal responsibility and cognitive endurance. It is empirically confirmed that 60% of students became emotionally more stable, and 71% formed a "growth mindset," prioritizing understanding the material over formal grade improvement. This work is critical for educators and researchers seeking to humanize the assessment system.</jats:p>