I’ve been having the same issues - I had to press enter 5/6 times to move through to the next review as the item info section would become quite buggy.
What did it for me was deactivating all options under “Show Item info” in the Double-Checker settings:
This is an annoyance because now I have to click it manually, but less problematic than not having double-checker 
EDIT: Nevermind, it’s still happening 
Removing wanikani_compatibility_mode check from the script worked out for me
At the end of click_submit() comment out
// if (!WaniKani.wanikani_compatibility_mode && document.querySelector(‘#answer-form button’).disabled) {
replace with:
if (document.querySelector(‘#answer-form button’).disabled) {
This worked for me.
This worked for me and I did try editing the code as EastSide told. I couldn’t make that work and this is prob the fastest easiest temporary fix for now.
I’ve just posted an update to Double-Check that implements the same change you posted.
I knew Script Compatibility Mode had been removed from WK, but it didn’t dawn on me that the script_compatibility_mode variable might still be ‘true’ even though the mode was removed.
(edit: I suppose that’s because it was only removed from the Lessons and Reviews pages. It’s still potentially used on other pages, though I don’t know of any.)
I think, once it became undefined, the value is simply garbage. But overall, removing the variable in this case seems excessive, given the customer impact.
Thank you for the script. It saved my sanity many times over!
Works perfectly, thank you so much. Only found this script about 2 weeks ago and it’s been a life saver.
I just wanted to bring the following post to your attention incase you miss it.
If anyone still has issues after updating, I had to clear my browser cache for the script to work again.
Just another point about updating — double check you are actually on the latest version, in my case Tampermonkey was unable to update automatically for some reason and I had to go to greasyfork and update it myself manually. Now everything seems to be working! 
Hi again. Can confirm the issue I posted about before was not with this userscript, but rather “wrap up button enhancement” causing issues.
Hey skatefriday and @Abstormal! Sorry for the long break between responses. Thanks again for voicing your thoughts on a native ‘double check’ function. I’ll direct you to rfindley’s observation which I think sums up what the WK content team has been struggling with for years about typo forgiveness and ‘double check’ functions, which is the fact that it’s really easy to abuse, especially if you’re talking about Japanese readings.
If you have any observations on how to implement typo forgiveness that might prevent abuse of the system send your thoughts our way at hello@wanikani.com
-Nick at WK
Thank you @WaniConti, I had a followup to that which specifically addressed @rfindley’s observations and readings in particular.
I’d argue that abuse is in the eye of the beholder and WK doesn’t need to be quite as parental in this regard as it is.
I’d have to disagree on that - I like the strictness, it was a massive help especially for the first few months. At the very least if an “undo”/“double check” function were to ever be implemented I think it would be best as something to be turned on in the settings for people who wanted it, but I personally think it’s best left as a script.
The mistake delay feature however I do agree would definitely be a good thing to implement, I hate it when I make a mistake but click enter too fast!
May I ask you why you want to prevent abuse of the system? I mean, think about it for a moment, if people pay WK to cheat themselves, wow! That’s a pretty nice business model, no? 
Now, seriously. If people cheat themselves and then don’t learn anything, or maybe not as much as they could if they had been strict on themselves, then what? WK level 60 is not an seal of approval of knowledge in any sense. So if people want to cheat, they only cheat themselves. So what? Is that any of your business? 
Or are you going to say you only allow those people to cheat themselves who are smart enough to install a userscript? 
I don’t see your point, I really don’t…
Those leniencies does nothing for my bad typing and dyslexia.
Yes, the feature can be abused. But now I am penalised for mistakes that weren’t my intended answer, so much I refuse to do reviews when the script is down. I don’t want to ruin my progress by getting boggled down with items I knew the answer to. I always say it out loud, and only correct it if what I said was the correct answer. Using the script without abusing it is our own responsibility.
I too say it should be an option in settings, and can be off as the standard and give a warning of how “abusing it will only fool yourself and ruin your recollection of the item” when it is switched on. So those who decides to use it knows to use it responsibly our suffer the consequence. You can even add a “this feature is meant for those suffering with dyslexia, struggle with the English word and similar” to show it isn’t meant to be used by others (but they can decide for themselves if they want it anyway)
Yes, we have scripts, but a native feature would be kept constantly stable and seems to be common on all other learning platforms, so why is WaniKani different? It makes me loath vanilla (no script) wanikani and only able to ever do reviews at home on my computer.
There is also the confusion of using multiple learning platforms. The English part can vary enough so that I’ll get it wrong for using how the other uses it. It’s often enough phrased differently so using one sites answer on the other will mark it wrong, even though the meaning is the same. But I need it on both meaning and reading though. When I get it wrong I try to read through it to see what I did wrong (without checking the answer) Sometimes I give up and just hit backspace (my redo shortcut) write the same answer again and it is correct. So there was a typo that I couldn’t even spot when knowing it was wrong. (Had it still been wrong I would have checked the answer to see if I did indeed misremember and then let it drop) Not having the option is not user friendly for people with disabilities like mine.
Even though I think so (but as native optional settings), Wanikani strictness is somewhere between, regarding English part, and compounds with Kana.
Typo tolerance on English is a nightmare, yet so many people want it. Me too, can’t always guess English words and spellings that Wanikani really want; so 1. strictly exact typing mode on Enter; 2. lenient on Shift + Enter, then allow unidirectional turning Right-to-Wrong? (i.e. double-check)
That being said, I want strictly exact English as an optional settings. (Originally, No Cigar. Currently doable with double-check.)
More than that, probably optional Anki mode, and just some typing / matching pad? Or auto-check with subsequent double-deck?
You do also have to bear in mind though that at the end of the day, however unfair it may be, people who cheat themselves like that in many cases will end up blaming WaniKani - and negative reviews will always hurt a business. Having the option as a userscript just raises the bar - which will reduce the number of cases of negative feedback because of something WaniKani didn’t cause.
You are right that people abusing it to “cheat” would mainly be harming themselves, but I do think it does affect WaniKani.
As a few people have said, maybe having the feature as a setting that defaults to “off” with a warning about it could be a good compromise, but I do definitely see why the WaniKani team have doubts about it!
It would be interesting to compare that with e.g. Bunpro who has a built-in correction mechanism. I wonder if they have actually encountered negative reviews?
Also, what if people start giving negative reviews because of WK’s missing correction feature?
It’s not always possible to use scripts, as others mentioned already.
Absolutely agree! If they think it is harmful, they can make it a bit harder for people to discover options like these, but leaving them out is not an alternative in my opinion.
I view Userscripts as fragile makeshifts / hacks, rather than “options”.
Consider that website UI continually changes, and mostly undocumented (in contrast with API); and Userscripts might not work in future web browsers.
