Who is to judge whether miscues disrupt meaning?

In the Surviving Reading Instruction chapter by Ann Marek in Retrospective Miscue Analysis by Goodman and Marek, she states "...only the reader is in the position to judge whether miscues disrupt meaning. Further, a teacher attempting to control those determinations may only reinforce dependence on others to monitor understanding." (p. 85, emphasis added)

Is this true for all reading purposes?

I agree that if I step in to judge comprehension I reinforce reader dependence, and that reader independence is an important goal. 

I am not sure I agree that students who are reading to seek information or content knowledge, or students who are reading to demonstrate comprehension (such as students taking a standardized test) are free to judge whether miscues disrupt meaning. The reader has the responsibility to judge whether the miscue disrupts meaning, yes, but in testing other people are in a position to judge as well. In a test, a student who confidently concludes that miscues did not disrupt meaning, reaching unexpected or novel conclusions about the content, may fail to correct miscues that must be corrected to achieve the reading purpose (identifying a correct answer).

Judging whether a miscue disrupts meaning is a skill, just like identifying comprehension "roadblocks" or "puzzles" in the Reading Apprenticeship model is a skill. It's true that all and any analysis by the reader provides a window to understand the process the reader is using to make sense of the text, so in that sense all conclusions are valid and useful. However, not all conclusions are objectively accurate. What experiences help students build the self-monitoring skills they need to gauge their own level of comprehension with sufficient accuracy?