Build a concept-based recall and spaced-review learning loop

Why use this

1. A learner may recognize familiar explanations yet struggle to retrieve the underlying concept without hints. Reviewing everything equally can also hide a persistent misconception behind otherwise fluent answers.

2. This job could make review decisions depend on explicit recall evidence and keep misconceptions visible between sessions. A separated assessment context is useful only if its inputs and scoring boundaries can be checked rather than assumed.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

Useful judgment

Identify the concept behind an answer, distinguish a partial explanation from a misconception and propose targeted review.

Simpler alternative

Use ordinary flashcards for stable factual pairs with unambiguous answers.

Unsuitable when

The record will determine high-stakes educational outcomes or learner privacy cannot be protected.

Proposed inputs

1. Name

   Concept map and answer criteria

   Owner

   Learner or educator

   Minimum scope

   A small authorized topic with accepted explanations

   Quality check

   Define what counts as correct, partial and unsupported

2. Name

   Practice responses

   Owner

   Learner

   Minimum scope

   Voluntary answers linked to concepts, without unnecessary identifiers

   Quality check

   Keep hints and prior tutoring separate from assessment evidence

Access and setup — proposed or unknown

Proposed minimum

1. Local synthetic responses and a proposed state schema first; persistent learning records need an agreed scope.

Compatibility unknowns

1. Current skill/state-engine compatibility, assessor isolation and optional-hook behavior are unknown.

External actions requiring approval

1. Persistent record creation, optional hooks, reminders and sharing learner data need appropriate approval.

Expected deliverable and review checks

Proposed artifact

Concept record with response evidence, provisional assessment, misconception notes and proposed next review.

Critical checks

1. Connect each assessment to the response; preserve uncertainty; verify assessor inputs exclude tutor hints.

Missing output evidence

No independently inspected learning gains, assessor-isolation test or reusable result artifact is supplied.

Failure signals and proposed responses

1. Signal

   Correct wording masks contradictory reasoning

   Why it matters

   Recognition may be mistaken for understanding

   Proposed response

   Ask an unhinted transfer question before advancing the concept.

2. Signal

   An assessment includes tutor suggestions

   Why it matters

   The score may reward copied support

   Proposed response

   Discard that assessment and propose a clean-context retry.

Effort and cost — unknown

Setup work

1. Define concept identifiers, assessment criteria and retention boundaries.

Ongoing review

1. Correct disputed judgments and revise review priorities.

Unknowns

1. Assessment consistency, storage needs, reminder delivery and operating costs are unknown.

First check — proposed, unexecuted

Status

proposed_unexecuted

Synthetic fixture

Invent two concepts, three responses and a separate hint transcript. Include one fluent but contradictory answer.

Acceptance checks

1. Trace scores to answers; flag contradiction; exclude hints; keep the review schedule a proposal.

Stop conditions

1. Stop if assessor separation cannot be demonstrated or real student records are required.

Limits

1. A proposed review loop does not establish improved retention or suitability for grading.