Suppose you're a rule consequentialist. I think you should think that situations could arise where you know that one of the available options, B, is better than A (i.e. contains more total intrinsic value), but you ought to pick A anyway. So, maybe you can get a smidge more utility if you break a promise than keep it, this is a fact that isn't lost on you, but it wouldn't thereby follow for the rule-consequentialist that the promise should be broken.
I think this much is pretty straightforward. This is what I'm not so sure about. Consider:
(1) Although you ought to have done A, the correct thing to do in the situation described is pick B.
(2) You know that the correct way to deal with the situation described is pick B. After all, you know that that's what you're supposed to do.
It seems to me that (2) is the clear winner here. So, I'm curious as to whether we should say that if you know you ought to A, the correct way to deal with the situation is to A.
Notice I haven't said that "correct" and "ought" come to the same thing, I'm just floating the idea that what you know you ought to do will thereby be the "correct" way to deal with the situation.