Draft criterion-linked feedback on submitted work

Proposed inputs

1. Name

   Fictional response set

   Owner

   Educator

   Minimum scope

   Two invented adult-workshop answers with stable page and paragraph labels.

   Quality check

   Include no real learner records or hidden identifiers.

2. Name

   Approved marking pack

   Owner

   Educator

   Minimum scope

   Assignment, versioned criteria, point rules and one authorized exemplar.

   Quality check

   Verify these belong to the same assignment and separate examples from compulsory wording.

Access and setup — proposed or unknown

Proposed minimum

1. Tools to verify: Cowork file reading and a separate draft-output folder.

2. Use copies; inspect transcription before applying criteria and preserve the educator’s edits.

Compatibility unknowns

1. Unknown: scan recognition, current file limits, extension availability and permitted institutional processing.

External actions requiring approval

1. Processing any real learner data, writing to a gradebook, distributing feedback or changing the approved scheme.

Why use this

1. Repeated marking can make it hard to maintain consistent explanations across differently phrased answers.

2. A traceable draft gives the educator something concrete to correct. It must not become an unreviewed score or a judgment about the learner.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

Useful judgment

Compare paraphrased reasoning with criteria and identify where evidence is missing or ambiguous.

Simpler alternative

Use a teacher-maintained comment bank for fixed-response exercises or deterministic answer checking.

Unsuitable when

Policy forbids processing, handwriting is unreliable, or a qualified educator cannot review the result.

Expected deliverable and review checks

Proposed artifact

Response-by-criterion review sheet with evidence locators, tentative feedback, uncertainty and educator decision.

Critical checks

1. Every criticism points to actual response text; missing evidence is not a fabricated error.

2. Equivalent reasoning is treated consistently; an exemplar is not the only acceptable wording.

3. Any score remains provisional, sums correctly and cannot reach a gradebook automatically.

Missing output evidence

Unknown: original feedback quality and educator correction history; no original deliverable was inspected.

First check — proposed, unexecuted

Status

proposed_unexecuted

Synthetic fixture

Two invented adult-workshop answers express the same valid idea differently; one includes an unreadable symbol. A three-criterion scheme supplies the intended interpretation.

Acceptance checks

1. Credit equivalent reasoning provisionally and cite its location.

2. Leave the symbol unresolved and require educator approval before any score is final.

Stop conditions

1. Real learner data appears, the scheme conflicts with the question, or transcription cannot be verified.

Failure signals and proposed responses

1. Signal

   Unreadable notation becomes a confident error.

   Why it matters

   The proposed feedback misrepresents the answer.

   Proposed response

   Mark the passage unreadable and request educator transcription.

2. Signal

   An alternative valid explanation loses credit.

   Why it matters

   Similarity to the exemplar has replaced the actual criterion.

   Proposed response

   Show both interpretations to the educator; do not finalize the judgment.

Effort and cost — unknown

Setup work

1. Prepare the marking pack and resolve permitted data scope.

Ongoing review

1. Inspect every feedback statement and retain corrections.

Unknowns

1. Unknown: review effort, usage costs and consistency across subjects.

Limits

1. A numbered paper can remain identifiable. This proposal establishes neither lawful processing nor assessment validity; educator responsibility remains essential.