{ "schema": "human-standardized-labels-1", "rubric": "standardized-human-v1.0", "fingerprint": "b234e11423780cdc0807cec0eb73433a93e91f7eefb0aa77e130e3fd50a42ade", "orderId": "hv28-fixed-bc5a14c697365b75", "coder": "AI (opus)", "worklist": "A", "navigationOrder": "question-first-v1", "uiVersion": "q1-q4-only-20261027", "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "sources": {}, "records": { "ae2ea266171341d0f27d": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response grades the student's actual written answer, 7/10, against the scheme's single criterion of 7. It notes that the numerator correctly counts the union (Dan, Ann, Eva, Chloe, Gus, Finn, Ben). It withholds the mark because n(T∪S) asks for a count, not a proportion. It invents no error and does not repair the work." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "0458f922575584bf080b": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response assesses the written 7/10 against the scheme's requirement of 7. It identifies 7/10 as a probability rather than the required count. It addresses the follow-through question by noting that the scheme authorizes no credit for the numerator alone. This matches the actual work and the actual target." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "757963dd545e69ffcaa4": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response addresses the requested assessment of the student's 7/10 against the scheme value of 7. It gives a hedged reading ('appears to be') of 7/10 as a proportion of the 10 students, which the diagram supports. It withholds the mark because 7/10 is not equivalent to 7. It invents no work and targets nothing outside the task." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "9441d5f900f40f9f0d8f": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Mark for this case is genuinely ambiguous (7 followed by a trailing n); 0 seems better supported since the stated value is 7n.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"The student's answer shows '= 7'\" - image_2 reads n(7) = 7n (or n(T) = 7n): a clearly written trailing 'n' follows the 7 and is silently dropped; the 'n(S)' reading of the left symbol is also unsupported.", "correct": "\"the scheme awards credit for the value 7 alone. Therefore the full mark is awarded\" - credit is justified on a value '7' that is not what was written; the written answer is '7n', so the award rests on a silently repaired answer rather than a defended treatment of the trailing n.", "right_place": "The student's line ends with a visible trailing 'n' ('= 7n'). The response describes the answer as '= 7' and never mentions that trailing character, so it grades silently repaired work rather than what is written. This matters because the scheme's single mark depends on whether the stated value is 7." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "edbb6298cbd17f56b808": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response engages with the student's actual written line, including the trailing 'n'. It bases its assessment on the scheme's requirement of 7. Whether withholding the mark for '7n' is correct belongs to correctness, not task relevance." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "8f8c99b3299a5e510d51": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Describes the clearly written trailing 'n' only as 'an unclear trailing mark', which understates it; n(T) is a plausible reading of the bracketed character.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "unverifiable", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "\"Credit is therefore awarded, with the notation and final-character reading noted as uncertainty\" - image_2 shows '= 7n'; whether the trailing n is part of the answer (7n, not 7) or a stray mark decides 1 vs 0, and the handwriting cannot settle the student's intent. The response flags this uncertainty, but its award of 1 cannot be confirmed.", "right_place": "The response explicitly acknowledges the trailing mark after 7 and flags it as a reading uncertainty rather than silently dropping it. It addresses the n(T ∪ S) target, supporting this with the union count from the diagram, and applies the scheme to that reading." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "acaf9eabb33dd582e640": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response targets the scheme's M1 and A1 and ties both to the student's actual lines. It credits the visible (t−4)², which the scheme allows as sight of (t−4)². It withholds A1 because the student never states A = 56 and B = 4, and the work ends at (t−4)²−56 = A − (t−B)(t+B). It invents no error." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "bfbd2d4597e44e29ef69": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response addresses the requested mark decision using the student's actual work. It awards M1 for the visible (t−4)². It withholds A1 because the final line shows −56 and gives no A = 56 or B = 4. The reading uncertainty it flags concerns the ambiguous B/b in the bracketed factors, and it correctly notes that no reading changes the outcome." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "0c1d8acbef36b6387f1f": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response addresses the scheme target and the student's real progress. It credits M1 for the written (t−4)^2. It withholds A1 because the line (t−4)^2 − 56 does not give A = 56 and B = 4. Its note on A − (t−B)(t+B) refers to writing actually present on the page, not an invented error." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "eea47c8a00b3e617138e": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Justification is 2 sentences, about 60 words; within limit.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "It grades the student's actual work. The 540, 420 ÷ 12 = 35, 175 and 70 lines are credited. The written underlined final line '175 − 70 = 5°' is correctly identified as not 105, so the final mark is withheld. No error is invented and none is repaired." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "4e3531c4496a2c05b28e": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"subtracts to get 105\" - image_2 final line reads '175 - 70 = 5°' (double-underlined); the 105 at the top of the page is the label for angle C (3 x 35), not the student's difference. The response invents a correct final answer.", "correct": "\"Mark: 4 / 4 ... All four scheme points are met, including the correct final answer\" - the written final answer is 5°, not 105, so the final A mark should be withheld; best-supported mark is 3/4 (540, 420/12 = 35, 175 and 70).", "right_place": "It silently repairs the student's work by stating the student 'subtracts to get 105'. The written subtraction actually reads '175 − 70 = 5°' and is underlined as the final answer. The awarded final-answer credit therefore rests on invented work, not the student's actual progress." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "8b6a6e9d8877a0d5635d": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Labels the scheme's marks M1-M4, which the scheme does not use; minor.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"finally 175−70=105 (M4)\" - image_2 shows '175 - 70 = 5°' double-underlined as the final answer; 105 appears only as the angle-C label at the top. The response silently repairs the student's subtraction.", "correct": "\"All four scheme points are clearly met, so full credit is awarded\" - final answer 5° is incorrect, so the final-answer mark is not earned; best-supported mark is 3/4.", "right_place": "It attributes '175−70=105' to the student. The student actually wrote '175 − 70 = 5°' as the underlined final answer. Full credit is therefore built on a repaired final line rather than the submitted work." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "669d3ffd826a6034cfd3": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "A1 is genuinely ambiguous here (values identifiable but final form has exponent 4); 2/2 and 1/2 are both defensible if justified.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "fail" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "Omission: \"The values A=56 and B=4 are clearly identified in the final expression\" - the final line in image_1 is 56 - (t-4)^4 (exponent clearly 4, not 2) and line 2 (40 + (t-4)^2) is not equivalent; the justification never mentions this defect, which is the material issue for the A1 decision, so the credit justification is insufficient.", "right_place": "The response grades the final line as if it were a clean A−(t−B)² result. The written line shows a raised exponent that looks like 4 and an unclear operator after 56. The task requires assessing the actual work and identifying reading uncertainty, so awarding A1 on 'clearly identified' values amounts to grading silently repaired work." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "3e1a91a8db20a29625a7": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response addresses the actual student lines. It ties M1 to the (t−4)² on line 2 and acknowledges that line 2 is not equivalent to the original. It also notes that the final exponent appears to be 4. It then makes an explicit, scheme-based judgment that A=56 and B=4 are still identifiable." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "554d512783969ce037f3": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Withholding A1 for the ^4 is a defensible strict reading; the response notes the alternative.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response addresses the actual work. It awards M1 for (t−4)² on line 2 and reads the final line as written, with an exponent that looks like 4. It flags the alternative reading and withholds A1 on that stated basis. Whether withholding is the best mark is a correctness matter; the target and the student's progress are addressed." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "bd55f0ca41a78bb6cfe3": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response addresses the requested target, n(T∪S), and the student's actual work. It recognises the correct count of 7 in the working and the final answer written as 7/10. It then applies the one-mark scheme to that final answer. No error is invented, and no unwritten work is credited." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "031401142c6c08ca3d60": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response correctly targets the final answer to n(T∪S) and the student's actual lines of working. It notes the correct count of 7 and the stated final value 7/10. It then applies the scheme's single mark for 7 to that final answer. Describing 7/10 as a probability is an interpretive label, not an invented error." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "9e62b0fcf4d5e3e645dc": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response addresses the scheme's requirement of 7 for n(T∪S). It acknowledges the student's correct working line and identifies the final written value 7/10 as the assessed answer. It stays on the actual target and the actual student work." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "3b8ec1b05a245e9ac431": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response grades the student's actual work as written: 2022 = 120%, 2023 = 140%, and 100/140 cancelled to the boxed 5/7. It ties each scheme mark to that work. It withholds the second P1 because 140% does not show compounding." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "0ded5c3f8011a1a2b0e2": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"120 and 144\" and \"the boxed answer 5/12, derived from 500/144\" - image_1 shows 2023 = 140%, the working 100/140 cancelled to 5/7, and the boxed answer 5/7; 144, 500/144 and 5/12 are not written.", "correct": "\"Mark: 2 / 3 ... P1 (complete method using a starting value, 120 and 144)\" - the student wrote 140 (adding 20 twice), not 144, so the second P1 for compounding is not earned; best-supported mark is 1/3. The response also states the corrected 100/144 = 25/36, which is beyond what is needed.", "right_place": "The response grades invented work. The student wrote 140, not 144, and boxed 5/7, not 5/12. The response awards the second P1 for a '120 and 144' method that does not appear in the image." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "a8686e413c0f2b92a02f": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response addresses the actual work: 120% for 2022, 140 instead of 144 for 2023, and the boxed 5/7. It notes a reading uncertainty about the denominator. It does not invent work." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "ee4bd774f8282dfe4535": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Awarding the second mark for the ratio-division structure is a lenient reading; I judge it unauthorized by the supplied scheme, but this is a marking-judgment boundary.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "\"They did correctly subtract 120 and divide by the correct total of 12 ratio parts, which earns the method mark\" - the scheme's second mark requires a correct method to find the sum of the remaining angles (e.g. (540-120)/12 or 12x = 420); the student's 360 - 120 = 240 uses an incorrect angle sum, so the remaining-angle sum is not correctly set up and the scheme authorizes no follow-through from a wrong total. Best-supported mark is 0/4.", "right_place": "The response grades the student's actual written work. It reports that 360 was used instead of 540, that 120 was subtracted, and that the result was divided by 12 to give 40, 100 and 60. Awarding the method mark for (360−120)/12 is a debatable reading of the scheme, but that is a question of mark correctness. It does not misread or invent the student's work." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "e50bf60f89dea77590b4": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response addresses the student's actual use of 360° and the values that follow from it (20, 40°, 100°, 60). It withholds the method mark because the student did not correctly set up the remaining-angle sum. That is a supported reading of the scheme, which describes a correct method to find the sum of the remaining angles. The response stays on the requested grading task." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "756546d8a7737019b8b0": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Same lenient-vs-strict boundary as response 1.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "\"Award the method mark for subtracting 120° and dividing by the correct 12 ratio parts, despite using an incorrect total of 360°\" - the scheme's second mark is for a correct method to find the sum of the remaining angles ((540-120)/12 or 12x = 420); 360 - 120 = 240 is not that, and no follow-through from a wrong angle sum is authorized, so the credit is unjustified. Best-supported mark is 0/4.", "right_place": "The response targets the actual work: subtracting 120 from 360, dividing by 12, and obtaining 40°, 100° and 60°. It correctly observes that the scheme does not authorize follow-through for the accuracy marks. Whether the method mark should be awarded with 360 is a mark-correctness question; the response's relevance to the student's work and the scheme is intact." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "7c85a21defb8ed325a56": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Answer-only marking convention is a boundary; I judge 5/5 best supported, and 1/5 the least coherent option either way.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "\"The final answer 50.5 is correct, earning the final A1 ... so no method marks are awarded\" - awarding only the dependent final A1 while withholding every M mark is internally inconsistent (A marks depend on their method marks), and a correct, non-guessable 1 d.p. answer of 50.5 with no contradictory working implies the method (scheme: VA 'may be implied by subsequent working'); answer-only is not automatically limited to 1 mark. 1/5 is not a defensible mark; 5/5 is best supported.", "right_place": "It assesses the actual submission against the supplied scheme: scattered figures and a final answer of 50.5. It reads the visible figures faithfully, notes they are unclear, and gives a scheme-based reason for withholding the method marks. It invents no error and builds no guidance on fabricated working. Whether 1/5 is the right integer is a correctness matter, not a relevance failure." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "44b28141cf126b3900e3": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "It addresses the actual student work, mainly the clear final answer of 50.5. It checks that answer against the scheme's accepted range and acknowledges that the small markings are unclear. It invents no working and no error. Awarding full credit for an unsupported correct answer is a plausible GCSE reading, and the claim stays tied to the real submission." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "962f78a209bbbf2daf68": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Same answer-only boundary as response 1.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "\"The final answer 50.5 is correct and earns the terminal A1. No working is present to imply the slant-edge length, so that A1 is not awarded\" - contradictory: the correct final angle 50.5 is itself subsequent working that implies the correct VA (scheme: 'may be implied by subsequent working'), and the final A1 cannot stand alone without its method marks. 1/5 is not defensible; a correct non-guessable answer with no contradictory working supports 5/5.", "right_place": "It addresses each scheme component against what is actually on the page: scattered numbers, a faint sketch and the final answer. It explains which marks are withheld (AC, VA², Cosine Rule, slant-edge A1) and which is awarded (final A1). It invents no student error and no working. Whether the A1 for the slant edge could be implied by 50.5 is a correctness question, not wrong targeting." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "5357e5717ee93f130885": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response grades the student's actual written work: \"1m = 40kg\", then \"100 kg ÷ 40 = 2.5\", then \"2.5 meters\". It correctly treats 100 ÷ 40 as neither a single-ingredient length process (25 ÷ 10 or 100 ÷ 30) nor the complete process. It rightly withholds A1 because the 2.5 answer is not supported by a correct justification. No error is invented." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "41288332abeded8e3a5a": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response addresses the student's actual combination to 40 kg per metre and the calculation 100 ÷ 40 = 2.5. It applies the scheme's requirement of a single-ingredient process and withholds A1 for lack of correct justification. This matches the scheme's condition. No work is repaired or invented." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "d9902310d82c4e33f756": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response targets the student's written calculation, 100 ÷ 40. It correctly judges that this is not a scheme process for one ingredient, so neither P1 is awarded. It ties the A1 withholding to the absence of correct supporting calculation. This addresses the real student progress against the supplied scheme." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "3663065d9312ec87f422": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Answer-only convention boundary; same judgment as MED-09.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "\"the A1 (cao) is awarded ... so the three method marks are withheld\" - awarding the final accuracy mark alone while withholding all method marks is incoherent (the A1 follows the M marks), and a correct 3 s.f. answer of 9.77 cm (not guessable) with no contradictory working implies the method; answer-only is not automatically limited to the A mark. Best-supported mark is 4/4, not 1/4.", "right_place": "The response assesses the student's actual submission, an answer-only line '= 9.77 cm'. It checks that line against each scheme component: A1 for the value, and the three M marks for arc length, perimeter equation and factorising. It invents no working and repairs nothing. Whether answer-only work merits 1 or 4 is a question of mark correctness, not task relevance." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "d46e9b37eaa409e1c939": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Answer-only convention boundary; same judgment as MED-09.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "\"The final answer 9.77 is correct, earning the A1, but ... the three M marks are withheld\" - a lone A1 without its method marks is not a coherent award; a correct, non-guessable 9.77 with no contradictory working implies the method, so 4/4 is best supported rather than 1/4.", "right_place": "The response addresses the requested target: it marks the submitted answer against the supplied scheme. It correctly treats the work as consisting only of the final value 9.77. It identifies the missing arc-length expression, perimeter equation and factorising step as absent from the work, and does not fabricate any of them." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "146eb524ba8c3c8b02f3": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Calls the decimal point unclear; it is visible in image_2 but the hedge is harmless.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response addresses the student's actual answer '9.77 cm'. It notes a genuine reading uncertainty about the decimal point, since the image shows a gap or dot between 9 and 77. It then assesses that answer against the 3 s.f. requirement. It does not invent working. Its decision to award full credit for answer-only work is a mark-policy and correctness matter, not a wrong target or fabricated progress." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "51a9470884100c38a89c": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Describes the handwriting as 'upside-down'; image_1 is upright. Immaterial to the mark but an unsupported description.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "\"Credit is given for the complete starting-value method (100, 120, 144) ... The first P1 is withheld because no valid single-increase multiplier (1.2 or 6/5) is shown\" - the scheme's second P1 explicitly accepts the starting-value route 100, 120, 144, whose 100 -> 120 step is the 20% increase process; a complete process implies the first P1, and 25/36 with supporting working earns A1. Withholding the first P1 while awarding the second is inconsistent; best-supported mark is 3/3.", "right_place": "The response treats the starting-value route as complete for the second P1, yet withholds the first P1 because no 1.2 or 6/5 is shown. The scheme lists the 100, 120, 144 method as an authorized complete process, so this route does not need a separate multiplier. The response also invents a feature of the work: the handwriting is not upside-down. Its reading of the top line as an incorrect error is speculative." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "86900098d2cfeb3c2b70": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response applies the scheme's starting-value alternative to award both P1 marks, then awards A1 for 25/36. It matches the actual work. It flags the unclear top line and the written numerator 1 without inventing an error. It also notes that the later 100/144 simplification supports credit." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "5774c34bccc56757acfd": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "\"No explicit multiplier (1.2 or 6/5) is written, so the first P1 is not awarded\" - the 100 -> 120 step of the scheme-accepted starting-value method is itself the process for a 20% increase, and the complete process (second P1) implies the first; with 25/36 supported by working the best-supported mark is 3/3, not 2/3.", "right_place": "The response recognizes the student's complete starting-value method and awards the second P1 and A1. It then withholds the first P1 because no explicit multiplier is written. This does not accept the scheme-authorized alternative route, which earns the process credit without 1.2 or 6/5. The guidance therefore misapplies the scheme's prerequisite structure to the student's actual approach." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "efc1691dd21b006f1c93": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"L⁻⁵ = 1/(3√3)⁵ = 1/(2187√3)\" and \"the clear (3√3)⁵ form\" - image_2 shows √27 = L = 3√3, then L⁻⁵ = 1/27⁵, = 1/(3^(1/3))⁵, = 1/3^(5/3); neither 1/(3√3)⁵ nor 2187√3 is written. The response invents a correct line.", "correct": "\"earning M1 for a correct first step\" - the student's written first step 1/27⁵ omits the square root (should be 1/(√27)⁵), and the following 1/(3^(1/3))⁵ is also not equivalent to L⁻⁵; no scheme-acceptable first step is shown, so best-supported mark is 0/3, not 1/3.", "right_place": "The response grades work that the student did not write. The image shows 1/27⁵, then 1/(3^{fraction})⁵, then 1/3^{fraction}. It does not show (3√3)⁵ or 1/(2187√3). The M1 is therefore justified by invented work rather than by the student's actual progress." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "fe262e33eab11b2eba7d": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"writes L⁻⁵ = 1/(3√3)⁵\" and \"the (3√3)⁵ expression is clear\" - image_2 has L = 3√3 on line 1, but the L⁻⁵ lines read 1/27⁵, 1/(3^(1/3))⁵ and 1/3^(5/3); 1/(3√3)⁵ is never written, so this is a silent repair attributed to the student.", "correct": "\"which meets the first-step M1\" - the written 1/27⁵ and 1/(3^(1/3))⁵ are not equal to 1/(√27)⁵, so the M1 for a correct first step is not earned; best-supported mark is 0/3.", "right_place": "The response credits M1 for '(3√3)⁵', which the student did not write. The lower-left expression is (3^{fraction})⁵, and its exponent is hard to read (it could be 3/2 or another fraction). The response repairs this into a clear surd form instead of grading the actual index-form expression and its uncertainty. It also treats the clearly incorrect 1/27⁵ only as 'partly illegible'." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "3f3aae12b56c50d35d0e": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "The inner exponent's denominator is overwritten (3 over another digit), but the numerator 1 is legible either way, so no reading yields a correct step.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"The lower-left exponent appears to read 3/2\" - in image_2 the inner exponent has a clear '1' as numerator over a (heavily overwritten) 3, i.e. 3^(1/3), which matches the student's next expression 3^(5/3); a numerator of 3 is not visible.", "correct": "\"making 1/(3^(3/2))⁵ a correct first step and earning M1\" - on the visible writing the expression is (3^(1/3))⁵ = 3^(5/3), not (√27)⁵ = 3^(15/2), and the preceding 1/27⁵ is also wrong, so M1 is not earned; best-supported mark is 0/3.", "right_place": "The response grades the actual student lines. It notes the incorrect 1/27⁵ and credits the index-form first step 1/(3^{3/2})⁵ as a valid alternative to (3√3)⁵. It also flags the uncertain reading of the exponent. It correctly withholds the second M1 and the A1 because there is no rationalisation and no final answer √3/6561." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "3e5b002cd960534fdaeb": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "All three responses quote line 2 as '4x^2 - 23 = 4x + 3'; the image RHS reads '= 4 +3' with no visible x (gap). Not material to the mark since the -23 already loses the equation mark.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response assesses the student's actual lines against each scheme mark. It covers the blank in the composite, the −23 equation and the absence of a zero-set quadratic, formula substitution or final answer. Writing '4x' where the image shows '4 +3' does not change any scheme decision, because M2 fails on −23 regardless." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "2804f09c258dd6b45105": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "M1 is somewhat borderline (intent to substitute is visible), but the written composite is incomplete and the next line is inconsistent with it. RHS of line 2 also lacks an x in the image.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'though the 5 is unclear in the bracket' - image_1 line 1 shows a clean blank gap in 4(x^2- )+3; nothing unclear is written there, and this mischaracterisation is used to support awarding credit. Also says 'the written g(x)=x^2-5' when only 'x^2-5' is written.", "correct": "'One mark is awarded for the composite function' - the student's composite 4(x^2- )+3 omits the 5 and the expansion 4x^2-23 does not follow from 4(x^2-5)+3 (=4x^2-17), so correct substitution is not shown; best-supported mark is 0/5, so 1/5 is unjustified credit.", "right_place": "The response targets the scheme marks using the student's own work. It credits the composite substitution while noting the unclear 5, withholds M2 for −23, and correctly finds no rearrangement to zero, formula use or final answer. Awarding M1 is a defensible reading, since −23 implies 4×5 was used." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "7ce64ad797ee6e201f60": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response addresses each scheme step against the student's actual work. It notes the apparent omission of the 5, the −23 in place of −17, and that no three-term quadratic is set to zero. It explicitly considers follow-through for M3, and it correctly notes the missing formula substitution and final answers." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "ea850d92bdd9afe57409": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response checks each of the five scheme points against what the student wrote. It covers the composite 4(x²−5)+3, the equation 4x²−17=4x+3, the rearrangement 4x²−4x−20=0, the substitution with a=4, b=−4, c=−20, and the final answers (1±√21)/2. All of these match the image. It invents no error and misses none that affects the mark." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "58758ed02a6154e2ae9a": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response applies each scheme mark to the student's actual lines: the composite, 4x²−17=4x+3, the rearrangement 4x²−4x−20=0, the substitution with a=4, b=−4, c=−20, and the final answers (1±√21)/2. It neither invents nor misses an error that affects the mark." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "53a72510f907aaffd891": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Student writes ∓ rather than ± in the formula; immaterial since both roots are given.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'The last factor under the radical ... appears to be 20, rather than -20' - image_1 formula line reads √((-4)^2 - 4×4×-20); a minus sign is visible between the final × and 20 (enlarged view confirms). Consequential misreading used to withhold a mark.", "correct": "'the substitution mark is withheld' / 'Mark: 4 / 5' - the substitution -(-4)±√((-4)^2-4×4×(-20))/(2×4) is correct for 4x^2-4x-20=0, so the scheme supports 5/5; withholding M4 is unsupported.", "right_place": "The response withholds the substitution mark for an error that does not appear in the work. The image shows the radicand as (−4)²−4×4×−20, with a minus written before the 20. The student had also just labelled c under −20, and the subsequent correct answers (1±√21)/2 are consistent with −20 having been used. Withholding the mark on the claimed '20' reading therefore grades an invented error." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "ec6c74ad3c6044908c54": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response grades the student's actual chain of work against each scheme mark. That chain is the arc-length expression, the factorised perimeter equation, 120/(6+2π), 9.7694 and then 9.77. It invents no error." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "b629be547361ddbd607c": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Mark 4/4 and the M1dep award are still correct; the misreading only distorts the stated basis for M1dep.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'The factorised lines appear to retain an extra r' - image_2 factorised lines read 40 = r(2 + 2π/3) and 40 = r((6+2π)/3); the π glyph has no trailing r (compare 2πr in the top lines), so no extra r is written. This is an invented error in the student's work, though the mark is unaffected.", "right_place": "The response invents an error in the factorised lines. The student wrote 40 = r(2 + 2π/3) and 40 = r((6+2π)/3), with no extra r. The student's tailed π looks the same in the later expressions 6+2π, where the response reports no extra r. The response then justifies the dependent M1 by a workaround for this non-existent defect." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "98379f2ba9ac9e9c3aac": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response follows the student's actual steps: 120/360 × 2πr, then 2r + 2πr/3 with the perimeter set to 40, then the factorisation, 120/(6+2π) and 9.77. It assigns each step to the correct scheme mark." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "c52632d69df37df44834": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Justification likely exceeds 3 sentences (4 sentences).", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'M1 for the slant-edge method 15² + (5√2)²' and 'the slip 225 + 50 = 175' - image_2 line 2 reads 15² − (5√2)² = 175 (a clear minus sign, consistent with 225 − 50 = 175); the response silently repairs the subtraction into an addition.", "correct": "'Mark: 3 / 5' - the slant-edge M1 is unearned because the student subtracted (5√2)² from 15² (VA² should be 225 + 50 = 275), and the cosine-rule M1 is doubtful because the LHS is written 10√2 rather than (10√2)² = 200. Only the AC M1 (5√2 half-diagonal / 10√2 base) is supported, so the best-supported mark is 1/5.", "right_place": "The student wrote 15² − (5√2)² = 175, a subtraction that correctly gives 225 − 50 = 175. The response repairs this into an addition method with an arithmetic slip, then awards the slant-edge M1 for 15² + (5√2)². That method does not appear in the written work, so it grades invented work." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "032f10169103013a7525": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'the correct method setting up VA² = 15² + (5√2)²' and '225 + 50 was wrongly evaluated as 175' - image_2 shows 15² − (5√2)² = 175 with a minus sign; the student subtracted, and the arithmetic 225 − 50 = 175 is actually correct. Silent repair of the student's sign.", "correct": "'Mark: 2 / 5' - awarding the VA² method M1 is unjustified: subtracting the half-diagonal squared from the height squared is not the Pythagoras method VM² + AM². Only the AC M1 is supported, giving 1/5. Also the claim that 225 + 50 was 'wrongly evaluated as 175' misdiagnoses the error (it is a wrong operation, not an arithmetic slip).", "right_place": "It credits the student for setting up VA² = 15² + (5√2)² and says 225 + 50 was wrongly evaluated as 175. The written work subtracts (5√2)² from 15², so the awarded method credit rests on silently repaired work rather than the student's actual method." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "3d42654504a0649b4550": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "It describes the actual student work and applies the scheme to it. It notes the half-diagonal 5√2 and AC = 10√2, the subtraction of (5√2)² from 15² giving 5√7, and the unsquared 10√2 on the left of the cosine-rule line. Withholding the slant-edge marks and the cosine-rule M is consistent with the written work." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "323f23840c26b65c3121": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Answer-only case; full marks follows the standard GCSE convention (correct answer, no contradictory working, question does not demand working) and the guide's 'answer-only is not automatically zero'.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response assesses the full 5-mark question against the scheme. It engages with the student's actual submission, a bare final answer of 50.5°. It invents no working or error and applies the scheme's accepted range of 50.4–50.5. Whether answer-only work earns full marks is a correctness question, not a relevance one." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "35cfe9703281ad178717": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Some ambiguity about answer-only credit, but 1/5 (A1 without its method) is the least coherent option.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'all three M1s and the slant-edge A1 are withheld' / 'Mark: 1 / 5' - image_2 shows the correct answer 50.5° alone; the question does not require working and nothing in the scheme forbids implied credit, so under GCSE convention the correct answer implies the method marks and earns 5/5. Awarding only the final A1 is not the best-supported mark.", "right_place": "The response addresses the requested assessment and the actual work, which is only '50.5°'. It goes through each scheme component (base diagonal M1, slant-edge M1/A1, cosine-rule M1, final A1) and relates each to the absence of written method. It invents no student error. Whether the final A1 can stand alone is a scoring-correctness issue, not wrong targeting." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "ecac601f45bf9209653a": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'the final A1 is dependent on that Cosine Rule M1' - the supplied scheme does not mark the final A1 as dependent (only the A1 for VA says 'may be implied'); and 'no credit is awarded despite the correct numerical value' contradicts the GCSE convention that a correct answer with no working earns full marks when working is not demanded. Best-supported mark is 5/5, not 0/5.", "right_place": "The response stays on the requested target and the student's actual submission. It states 'only the final value 50.5°, with no working' and assesses each scheme method mark against that. Its claim that the final A1 depends on the Cosine Rule M1 is not stated in the supplied scheme, which makes it a questionable assessment claim. It is not a wrong target or an invented student error, so it belongs to correctness rather than relevance." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "8503a91f561535ce1918": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Left column of image_1 more plausibly reads 1.00 − 0.55 = 0.45 with borrowing marks (crossed 1 -> 0, 0 -> 9, 10), i.e. 1 − (0.2+0.35); the response's '0.80 − 0.35' reading is hedged as uncertain and does not affect the 0/2 decision.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response checks the real scheme target: whether the work contains the product (1 − 0.2) × (1 − 0.05) and the answer 0.76. Its reading of the left column as 0.80 − 0.35 is likely wrong; the column looks like 1.00 − 0.55 with borrowing marks. It does flag that reading as uncertain, and it builds no credit on it. Its 0 / 2 assessment rests on the absence of the required product and on the written answer 0.45." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "a6ad4c132698598709bd": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'The left column shows 0.80 × 0.95' and 'the 0.8 × 0.95 setup is legible' - image_1 left column has a minus sign before the second row and borrowing marks (0, 9, 1 above a crossed 1.00), giving 1.00 − 0.55 = 0.45, consistent with the right column 0.2 + 0.35 = 0.55. No × 0.95 product is written; the response invents the scheme's method with unsupported certainty.", "correct": "'the method mark is awarded' / 'Mark: 1 / 2' - the student's method is 1 − (0.2 + 0.35), not (1 − 0.2) × (1 − 0.05), so the M1 is unjustified; best-supported mark is 0/2. (Also 0.8 × 0.95 = 0.76, which could not yield 0.45.)", "right_place": "The response awards the method mark for '0.80 × 0.95', which does not appear in the student's work. The left column shows a minus sign and a crossed-out borrowing digit, consistent with 1.00 − 0.55 = 0.45. There is no multiplication by 0.95. The grading therefore credits invented work rather than the student's actual progress." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "29323ee5fb6062466761": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response addresses the student's actual work: the addition 0.2 + 0.35 = 0.55 and the final answer 0.45. It judges this against the scheme's required product and answer. It does not describe the subtraction column, but that omission does not affect the assessment, because no creditworthy product appears anywhere." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "98a73e5b5bd6282d705d": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "'They treat AC as 10 (half 5)' is a slight over-interpretation: the student uses the half-side 5 (from the 10 cm side) and never labels anything AC; does not affect the 0/5 decision.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response grades what the student actually wrote. It reads √(5²+15²)=√250 as a slant height, not VA or AC. It also notes the doubled tan⁻¹(5/15) method giving 36.8°. Each scheme mark is mapped to that work. Reading the student as treating the base width as 10, with half 5, is supported by the top sketch and the use of 5." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "56b22098e964ff6e2290": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'Award M1 on follow-through for √(15²+5²)=√250, treating 5 as their half-diagonal, and M1 for doubling tan⁻¹(5/15)' - image_2 shows no diagonal calculation at all; 5 is half the side, not 'their' half of a computed AC, so the scheme's follow-through ('their √200 / 2') does not apply, and doubling tan⁻¹(5/15) finds the angle between opposite face slant heights, not angle AVC. Best-supported mark is 0/5, so 2/5 is unjustified credit.", "right_place": "The response gives follow-through credit on an invalid prerequisite. It awards M1 for √250 by treating 5 as 'their half-diagonal', but the student never found a diagonal; 5 is half the side. The scheme's follow-through is for 'their √200'. It then awards the angle M1 for an 'equivalent angle method using their values', which rests on the same invalid premise. It also concedes that no diagonal method is shown." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "bf006ffcebafe7f2c682": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response deals with the student's actual work. It notes the absence of √200 or 14.1, and the use of half-side 5 in √(5²+15²)=√250. It also covers the doubled tan⁻¹(5/15) giving 36.8°, which is outside the accepted range. It applies each scheme mark without unauthorized follow-through and flags the unclear top sketch." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "56b7df425fbabe69b1ea": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Image_1 shows '= 2 5' and '2 5 × 1m = 2 5 m' with consistent gaps but no visible decimal point (pixel check: no stray marks). The intended 2.5 is likely but not written; the response correctly flags this. Under a decimal-intent reading a higher mark (up to 3/3) would be defensible, so the mark is genuinely ambiguous.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response grades the work actually written. It credits the pairing of 25 kg cement with 75 kg sand as a single-ingredient proportional process. It correctly notes that no length is found from the 100 kg of sand. It flags the genuine reading uncertainty of '2 5' versus 2.5 rather than silently repairing it. Its marks follow from that faithful reading." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "d953be679aa308975b4c": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'The answer 2.5 m is given' and '25 kg cement … = 2.5' - image_1 shows '2 5' / '2 5 m' with a gap but no decimal point; the response silently supplies the decimal point and does not flag this uncertainty, on which the A1 depends.", "correct": "'so A1 is awarded' while 'neither P1 is credited' - the response itself treats 25 kg cement with 75 kg sand (2.5 × 30) as supporting calculation; that scaling is a process for the cement-limited length (implied 25 ÷ 10), so awarding the accuracy mark 'with supporting calculations' while denying the first process mark is internally inconsistent. On the decimal-intent reading at least P1 + A1 is supported; on the literal reading A1 cannot be awarded. 1/3 as A1-only is not defensible either way.", "right_place": "The response states that 'The answer 2.5 m is given' even though the image shows '2 5' with no visible decimal point. It does not acknowledge that uncertainty, so it silently repairs the student's answer. It then awards A1 on that repaired reading while crediting no process mark. The mark therefore rests on an unresolved reading of the student's actual work." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "addb36ae07dc8332612d": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Genuinely ambiguous case: an examiner reading the gaps as decimals might award 3/3 for correct answer with supporting calculation, but the response's stated basis (comparison with 100 kg) is not in the work.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'The student shows ... that the 75 kg sand required is within the 100 kg available' - image_1 never mentions 100 kg or any comparison; only '25kg cement + 75kg sand = 2 5' and '2 5 × 1m = 2 5 m' are written. Also asserts '2.5 m' though no decimal point is visible (silent repair, not flagged).", "correct": "'a complete process using both ingredients (P1, P1)' / 'Mark: 3 / 3' - the second P1 requires finding both possible lengths (e.g. 100 ÷ 30 = 3.33) or an equivalent comparison with the sand available; no such process is written, so the justification for full marks rests on invented work. The A1 also depends on the unflagged 2.5 reading.", "right_place": "The response credits a comparison with the 100 kg available and 'a complete process using both ingredients'. Neither appears in the student's work: there is no 100 ÷ 30 or other length from the sand, and no written comparison with 100 kg. It also reads '2 5' as 2.5 m without noting the missing decimal point. Full marks are therefore built on invented and repaired work." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "df893b046ed539b02b25": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Borderline: a strict reading of 'setting up a correct method' could justify withholding the second mark, but 2/4 is the better-supported award.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'M2 is withheld ... the equation is written 240=12x rather than 12x=420, so the division step is incorrect' / 'Mark: 1 / 4' - image_2 shows both 540 − 120 = 420 and 2+2+3+5 = 12 correctly, so the method of dividing the remaining 420 by 12 parts is set up; 240 is a digit-transposition copying slip of their own 420, which under usual GCSE practice costs the accuracy marks (already lost), not the method mark. Best-supported mark is 2/4.", "right_place": "It assesses the student's actual written lines against the scheme. It notes 540, 420 and 12, and that the equation is written as 240=12x. It ties x=20, the angles 40, 60, 100 and the answer 80 to the withheld marks. Withholding M2 is strict, but it rests on what is written, not an invented error." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "affd7e7bd97ad1c718df": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "It addresses each scheme mark using the actual work. M1 is given for 3×180=540 and M2 for 540−120=420 with 2+2+3+5=12. It flags the reading '240=12x' as an appearance-based reading. It explains that 40, 60, 100 and 120−40=80 earn no accuracy marks, without inventing follow-through." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "8d16fde24969fb9bec5e": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "It addresses the actual work against the scheme. It awards M2 because 420 and the 12 parts are shown, and treats 12x=240 as a slip of 420, which is a supported reading of the digits. It withholds M3 and M4 based on the student's actual angles 40, 60, 100 and final 80." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "5b557ce98a8f244c6239": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'No working or method is shown, so the method mark ... cannot be given' / 'Mark: 1 / 2' - image_1 shows the correct answer 0.76 alone; the question does not demand working, so under GCSE convention a correct answer implies the method mark (answer-only is not automatically limited to the A mark). Best-supported mark is 2/2; awarding the answer mark while denying its method is not defensible.", "right_place": "It assesses the requested probability task against the student's actual work: a lone '0.76' and an unrelated stray line. It invents no working and no error. Withholding the method mark for unshown work is a mark-correctness question, not a wrong target." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "4d04f0e05ed7b5e66535": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "It addresses the correct target and the student's actual answer of 0.76. It explicitly notes that no calculation is shown, so it does not invent working. It treats the method mark as implied by the correct answer, which is a recognised GCSE convention rather than invented work." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "a5332f3a2e75ddc17340": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'the method mark is withheld' / 'Mark: 1 / 2' - the correct answer 0.76 with no contradictory working implies the 0.8 × 0.95 method under GCSE convention when working is not required; best-supported mark is 2/2.", "right_place": "It targets the requested probability and the scheme's two marks, using the student's real work. It correctly identifies 0.76 as present and explicitly rejects the stray line as method evidence. No error or working is invented." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "5ee7953b4cfed1f9492d": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Mark 3/3 itself is the best-supported award (correct answer with working; A1 implies the rationalising M1).", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'the intermediate line (3²×(√3)²)⁵ is not equivalent to (3√3)⁵ as written' - image_2's middle line reads roughly (3^? × (3^{·?} )^5 with unclear exponents and no √ symbol; the response asserts a specific reading and an error with unsupported certainty. It also reports the denominator as 1/(2187√3) without noting that the written radicand resembles 2 (silent repair).", "right_place": "The student's denominator reads 1/(2187√2), with a radicand that looks like 2. The response silently repairs this to 1/(2187√3). It then credits a rationalisation process 'shown' from the repaired expression, but the student wrote only a direct jump to √3/6561. The mark therefore rests on altered work rather than the actual work." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "7f277228dc6f5395b56f": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response addresses the actual written work. It credits the visible 1/(3√3)^5 and the final √3/6561. It explicitly notes that the intermediate radicand resembles 2 rather than 3, so it does not repair the work. Basing the second M1 on the correct start and final answer is an assessment judgement about the real work." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "af2d9742d13d4596ce7d": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Some ambiguity: a strict reading of 'complete process' could withhold M2, but then A1 would also be questionable.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'M2 is withheld as the rationalisation process (multiplying by √3/√3) is not shown' while 'A1 for the correct final answer √3/6561' - image_2 shows 1/(2187√[3]) = √3/6561, a correct rationalised result from their denominator; the correct answer with this working implies the rationalising method, and awarding the A1 while withholding the method mark it depends on is inconsistent with GCSE M/A dependency. Best-supported mark is 3/3.", "right_place": "The response addresses the actual student work. It credits L = 3√3 and 1/(3√3)^5, and it notes that no rationalisation step (multiplying by √3/√3) is shown, which matches the image. It flags the unclear middle line instead of inventing content. Whether withholding that M1 while awarding A1 is scheme-consistent is a correctness matter, not a wrong target." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "70bbc52b64769f419b2d": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response assesses the student's actual answer, \"7 people\", against the scheme's value of 7 for n(T ∪ S). Its supporting count of the seven names inside the circles matches the diagram. Ian, Holly and Jo lie outside both circles and are correctly excluded." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "e2a308eb7784eda8b331": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response addresses the requested value n(T ∪ S) and the student's written \"7 people\". It confirms the answer with an accurate count of the seven names inside the two circles, consistent with the scheme's value of 7." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "4f7dd341918c3fc6feed": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response briefly but directly addresses the student's actual answer, \"7 people\", for n(T ∪ S). It correctly identifies the answer as matching the creditworthy value. There is no wrong target and no invented error." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "51587631b0cd61bb1d8b": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Location (selecting C as first, contradicting 4/11<5/11) is correct. Category boundary between 5 and 7 is genuinely ambiguous, but 6 is not supported.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "Category '6. Logical Reasoning Error' is not defensible for the error it locates. The image shows correct comparisons (4/11<5/11, 3/13<4/13, 65/143 and 44/143) and the third blank A is correct, so the wrong first blank C is a slip in filling in the letter (Transcription/Attention & Detail, cf. expert explanation), not a faulty chain of inference; the response itself says 'its cause cannot be localized further', which does not support a reasoning-error category.", "right_amount": "The response supplies all three required parts: a category, a location and a cause. It locates the error at choosing C as the first fraction. It explains that this choice contradicts the student's written 4/11<5/11. It also states the evidence limit on why the choice arose. It is concise, gives no replacement ordering beyond noting that A is correct, and the language is respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "e968694630cbc39e8daa": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines before Category field.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'The earliest error is the choice of the cross-comparison ... 65/143 vs 44/143 ... a valid but ineffective step' classified as '4. Procedural Error': a valid, correctly executed comparison (5/11 vs 4/13) is not a mathematical error; the category is assigned to a non-error rather than to the wrong letter C in the answer.", "right_place": "'that jump is therefore treated as an unsupported downstream consequence, not the originating error': the only supported error is the answer 'C; A' (C written as first although the work shows 4/11<5/11 and the third answer A is right). The response instead targets an invented error (an incomplete but valid bridging comparison).", "right_amount": "The response supplies the category, a precisely described location and an explanation of why that step fails to complete the ordering. The location is the 65/143 vs 44/143 bridging comparison. It separates this from the downstream answer 'C; A' and flags that the final answer contradicts the visible work. It mentions the reference's 4/13 vs 4/11 link but does not write out a full replacement solution. The explanation is long but remains clear and within scope. Whether the diagnosis is correct belongs to another criterion." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "fe24c57968c44625fbaa": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Format: Category/Explanation block is output twice (near-duplicate), violating 'Return two fields'. Leading blank lines.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'This reflects a misconception about the fraction-comparison strategy' / '3. Conceptual Knowledge Error': comparing 5/11 with 4/13 via 65/143 vs 44/143 is valid; nothing shows a misconception, and the claim that this 'is why the student then placed 5/11 (C) first' is unsupported (the student got the third blank A correct, consistent with a slip in writing C). Category and causal explanation are not defensible.", "right_place": "'The earliest unsupported step is the bridging comparison the student actually performed': this is not an invalid step; the identifiable error is writing C for the first blank (expert: correct relationships, wrote C by mistake). Wrong target / invented error.", "right_amount": "Each output block contains a category, a located step (the 5/11 vs 4/13 bridging comparison), an explanation and a distinction between the error and its downstream consequence (first = C). The response repeats the Category/Explanation pair a second time with essentially identical content. Because the two copies are consistent, the duplication is redundancy rather than conflicting or materially unclear assistance. The response gives no full replacement solution and uses respectful language." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "ef6368fd87273d75ff7d": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines before Category field.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response supplies all three required parts. It names the category, locates the error at the vertical subtraction 74 − 9 = 66 and explains the mismatch with the correct 65. It also separates the downstream 66 ÷ 5 = 13.2 from the originating slip. The added legibility caveat is a proper uncertainty note. It does not solve for x = 13, so it stays within scope. The extra length is redundancy, not a material defect." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "496e5b7cbba89d246b0b": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "This concise response still supplies every required function. It gives the category and locates the error in the vertical subtraction where 66 is written. It states the correct difference, 65, and marks the division as a downstream consequence. It gives no full replacement solution." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "ccf2bbbe41a982d658f0": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines before Category field.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response gives the category, locates the error at the right-side vertical subtraction 74 − 9 = 66 and explains the units-digit mismatch against 65. It notes that the division is correct given 66, so 13.2 is a downstream consequence. It also flags the illegible '= 74' line as an evidence limitation. It does not give a full replacement solution and does not state x = 13." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "d506be0080c6ed94626e": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Location (final division of -6x=-3 giving -1/2) matches the image and expert. The specific mechanism 'positive 3 over -6' is only partly legible in the messy left-hand third line; not material to the diagnosis.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "Both required fields are present. The response names a specific step (the final division of −3 by −6), explains the sign mismatch and separates that step from the earlier lines and the resulting answer. Stating that (−3) ÷ (−6) = +1/2 is a short supporting calculation, not a full replacement solution. Whether the reading of the image is accurate belongs to another criterion." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "375fb451fd8a1e76bb3b": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines. Line 2 sign is somewhat cramped, but the visible '-6x = -3' resolves it.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'the student writes \"4x + 3x - 6x - 7x = 63 + 60\"' and 'the student even strikes through the 63': line 2 of image_1 shows three dash strokes before 63 (= followed by minus, i.e. '= -63 + 60'), and no strikethrough of 63 is visible; the student's next line on the right clearly reads '-6x = -3', contradicting 'they obtained -6x = 3'.", "correct": "'Because the student's misapplied transposition produced +3 instead of -3': 63 + 60 = 123, not 3, so the claimed chain from +63 to -6x = 3 is arithmetically invalid.", "right_place": "Misses the earliest supported error: the image shows correct transposition and -6x = -3, so the error is in the final division (-3)/(-6) given as -1/2 (expert explanation). The response targets an invented transposition error.", "right_amount": "Both required fields are present. The response quotes the transposition line, explains why −63 should keep its sign and traces the downstream steps to −1/2. Referring to the reference result (−6x = −3, x = 0.5) is brief support, not a new worked solution. The response is longer than ideal, but it stays clear and respectful. The strike-through claim is a fidelity issue, not a separate scope defect." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "4d1983b6a7461f0dc219": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Some ambiguity in line-2 strokes, but the later -6x=-3 line supports the minus being present.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'the student writes 4x+3x-6x-7x=63+60, dropping the minus sign from -63': image_1 line 2 shows '= -63 + 60' (three dash strokes: equals plus minus), and the subsequent '-6x = -3' is consistent only with -63+60; the dropped sign is a misreading.", "right_place": "'This is the earliest visible error': the transposition line is correct and leads to -6x = -3; the actual (and expert) error is solving -6x = -3 as x = -1/2. The response misses that error and targets an invented one.", "right_amount": "Both required fields are present. The response quotes the line it treats as erroneous, explains the sign rule it believes was misapplied and briefly separates this from the later simplification and answer. This is a concise explanation without a full replacement solution, as the task asks." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "8a5010ebe2c4b8093bd9": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines. Correctly flags the ambiguous operator/denominator in the scratch fragment.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "unverifiable", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'indicating a gap in the knowledge that an equivalent fraction must be expressed in simplest form' / '3. Conceptual Knowledge Error': the location (25/45 and 21/24 left unreduced) is correct, but the only evidence is the omitted reduction; the work cannot distinguish a knowledge gap (3) from an omitted step (4) or oversight (7), so the category rests on an inferred learner belief and the boundary is not decidable from the image.", "right_amount": "Both required fields are present. The explanation names a specific error location (the unreduced 25/45 and 21/24 given as final answers) and a cause (no reduction step). It flags that the scratchwork operator and denominator are hard to read. The reductions it shows (25/45 = 5/9, 21/24 = 7/8) are short supporting calculations, not a full replacement solution. The language is clear and respectful. Whether this diagnosis is correct is a separate criterion." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "035cccea1ada183a9465": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'Category: 1. Calculation Error' attached to 'The scratchwork appears to state 8/28=13/24': the response itself says the line is ambiguous and does not establish an error, so the category is not assigned to a supported error; the actual supported error (unreduced 25/45, 21/24) is given no category.", "right_place": "'without a simplest-form requirement, those answers are mathematically correct': the reference requires simplest form (25/45 = 5/9, 21/24 = 7/8); the supported error is leaving both answers unsimplified (expert explanation). The response targets an ambiguous scratch fragment (strokes in image_1 between 8/2? and 13/24 could be a sloppy +; 21/24 shows the addition was done correctly) instead.", "right_amount": "Both required fields are present. The explanation quotes the visible line '8/28=13/24' and says why it is invalid (8×24 ≠ 13×28). It states the limitation that the isolated line cannot be placed in the calculation. It also flags a conflict with the reference: the student answers are equivalent to the reference answers. It is concise, clear and stays within scope. Any tension between the category and its claim that the answers are correct concerns correctness, not this criterion." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "ca88938353ed376f94aa": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines. Category 7 would be defensible for the unreduced answers too, but here it is attached to the fragment.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "'The earliest concrete, supported mismatch ... is therefore the mis-written denominator/operator in \"8/28 = 13/24\"': the response itself concedes the denominator 'may be a mis-formed 24' and the fragment 'does not clearly connect' to the answers; the final 21/24 shows 8/24 + 13/24 was added correctly, so this inconsequential, ambiguous fragment is not a supported mathematical error. The supported error, leaving 25/45 and 21/24 unreduced, is mentioned only as a note and is not the diagnosed/classified error.", "right_amount": "Both required fields are present. The explanation quotes '8/28 = 13/24', says what is wrong (the denominator should be 24 and the relation should be addition, not equality) and notes the ambiguous reading of 28. It flags that the line does not clearly connect to the written answers and comments on the unreduced answers. The phrase 'giving 21/24' is a brief supporting calculation within allowed scope. It is somewhat lengthy, but no word limit applies and it remains readable and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "714b92e106ce2c91df05": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines. Infers a learner belief ('flawed understanding...') without written evidence.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'the bracket under 9＋3 indicates the partial sum 12), which evaluates to 24 m': image_1 shows '11' written under the bracket and '= 22' after '×2'; the response silently repairs the student's 11 and 22 to 12 and 24.", "correct": "'That step is valid, so the originating error is not in the perimeter computation' and 'Category: 3. Conceptual Knowledge Error' (using 9 as the side): the visible step 9+3 = 11 is an arithmetic error (should be 12), a Calculation error; the conceptual diagnosis rests on an unwritten step inferred from 81.", "right_place": "Misses the earliest supported error, 9 + 3 written as 11 (then 11×2 = 22), identified in the expert explanation; instead diagnoses an unwritten later step inferred from the final answer.", "right_amount": "Both required fields are present. The explanation names a located step (using 9 as the square's side) and explains the mismatch. It also states an evidence limitation. Its correct path (24÷4=6, 6×6=36) is a short supporting calculation, not a full replacement solution. Its misreading of the written 11/22 as 12/24 is a correctness/relevance issue, not a separate Q4 sufficiency, scope or clarity defect." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "e46eb3ca9b16295aba48": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response supplies the category, quotes the written step (11 beneath 9 + 3), and explains the mismatch (12, not 11). It identifies the downstream consequence (22) and notes that the visible work does not show how 81 was obtained. It is concise and clear and gives no replacement solution." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "5bbebcbee767646d1a39": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'The only visible step in the scratchwork, \"(9 + 3) × 2 = 24\", is a correct computation': image_1 shows 11 under the bracketed 9+3 and the result written as 22, not 24; the response repairs the student's work.", "correct": "'the written arithmetic therefore contains no mistake' and 'Category: 4. Procedural Error': the visible 9 + 3 = 11 (giving 22) is an arithmetic error, so the no-mistake assessment and the procedural category are not defensible.", "right_place": "Misses the earliest supported error (9+3 = 11 in the perimeter step, per expert explanation) and instead claims the error cannot be localized and attributes it to an incomplete procedure.", "right_amount": "The response gives a category and an explanation. It states a localization limitation, which the task allows, and describes the supported inconsistency between the visible work and the answer 81. It flags the 9×9 possibility as unconfirmed. It is verbose and hedged but understandable. Its correct chain (24 ÷ 4 = 6, 6 × 6 = 36) is a brief supporting calculation. Its claim that the arithmetic is correct is a correctness issue, not a separate Q4 defect." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "d54536086286189ec02c": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines. Correctly flags that the visible >= inequality gives x <= 43, conflicting with the written maximum 40.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "Supplies both required fields. It quotes a specific step, explains the mismatch with the \"<5\" condition and separates the originating error from its downstream effect on the lower bound. It also flags the conflict over the maximum. The corrected inequality and x > 39 are a short supporting calculation, not a full replacement solution. The language is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "fdb5772a8c7340d52e64": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "unverifiable", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'This is a conceptual modeling error' / '3. Conceptual Knowledge Error': location and mathematics (5x+38<6x only bounds the last share below 6; should be 5x+38<6(x-1)+5) are correct, but the error is a mistranslation of the verbal condition 'less than 5 boxes', which fits Problem Comprehension (2; expert: 'misinterpreted the problem'); whether 3 is defensible is a genuine category-boundary question the scratchwork cannot settle.", "right_amount": "Gives a category and quotes the erroneous step. It explains why total < 6x expresses \"fewer than 6\" rather than \"fewer than 5\" and traces the effect to the minimum of 39. It notes that the maximum of 40 is not localized in the shown steps. The correct translation is a brief necessary correction, not a full solution. The response is a little long but clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "489f546f138ba8f2c237": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "unverifiable", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'Category: 6. Logical Reasoning Error': the arithmetic (233 - 6*38 = 5) is correct, but the category boundary between treating the insufficient condition 5x+38<6x as logical reasoning versus mistranslating 'less than 5 boxes' (Problem Comprehension, expert) is not decidable from the work.", "right_place": "'No invalid algebraic step is visible, so an earlier error cannot be reliably localized in the scratchwork': the earliest error is identifiable in image_1 line 2, '5x+38 < 6x', which mis-models 'the last person gets less than 5 boxes' (should be 5x+38 < 6(x-1)+5). The response declines to locate it and diagnoses only the resulting minimum 39.", "right_amount": "Both fields are present. It points to the written steps 5x+38<6x and 38 -16 discrepancy but does not treat it as the error, even though it is the only mismatch between the student answer -16+1.5+6.3+(-3.1) and the correct answer. It instead diagnoses an ambiguous draft sign that is correct in the final answer, so it misses the supported originating error (copying -1.6 as -16).", "right_amount": "The response provides a category, a location (the final term read as +(3.1)) and a mathematical explanation of the sign mismatch. It also explicitly flags the conflict between the image (-1.6) and the typed answer (-16). Whether its reading of the image is right is a correctness or relevance issue, not a Q4 defect. The required functions are present, concise and within scope." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "7c2c98a9007f6edb8904": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Category boundary: the erroneous step (opposite of 4-5√3 given as 4+5√3) is unwritten, so Calculation (sign slip) vs Conceptual (expert's choice) cannot be settled from the work; both judged defensible.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response supplies all three required components. It gives a single category. It locates the error in the unwritten final opposite-number step that yields 4 + 5√3, after the correct written lines. It explains the mismatch: only the radical term's sign was changed. Showing −4 + 5√3 is a short supporting correction, not a full replacement solution. The language is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "b484cb6b941f232ea778": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Category boundary Calculation vs Conceptual is genuinely open because the final step is unwritten; Conceptual matches the expert. 'a misunderstanding of the opposite-number operation' leans toward inferring a belief from one answer, but it is not framed as persistent.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response gives a category, locates the error in the final unwritten opposite-number step, and explains why 4 + 5√3 is not the additive inverse of 4 − 5√3. It notes that the written lines 1→2 are correct. The one-line −(4 − 5√3) = −4 + 5√3 is a permitted short correction. There is no extended solution, no unclear wording and no disrespectful wording. Whether the category is right is not a Q4 matter." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "c138ea32d4601e029de7": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Category boundary Calculation vs Conceptual is genuinely open (unwritten final step); response appropriately states the localization limit.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response is concise but complete. It gives a category and confirms that the visible work −[−4+5√3] = 4−5√3 is correct. It places the error at the unseen step that produces the supplied answer and explains that the constant should be −4. It states a genuine evidence limitation: that step is not visible. No extra solution is disclosed. The wording is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "34434a2a7711d6792064": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Sign slip -6(x+2) -> -6x+12: Procedural/Calculation/Attention boundary is genuinely open; expert gives no category. Procedural judged defensible.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response supplies all three required components. It gives one category, locates the error at the line 15x−15−6x+12=10x−30, and explains that −6(x+2) should give −6x−12. It briefly notes the downstream effect on the answer. It stays concise and gives no replacement solution." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "9eb8be9a7a71bdc3abf4": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Student wrote 30×(x-1)/2 etc. with 15/6/10 annotations rather than 15(x-1)-6(x+2) literally; response's rendering is a meaning-preserving paraphrase. Category boundary for the sign slip is open; Calculation defensible.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response supplies category, location and cause for the +12 sign error. It separates the originating error from downstream steps. The short supporting calculation (−30+15+12=−3, x=3) contrasts the student's line with the correct one. That is a permitted brief calculation rather than a full replacement solution, and the correct answer was already supplied to the teacher. The explanation is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "fe87dfbf4017c4ad3d49": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Category boundary for the sign slip is open; Attention & Detail defensible.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response includes one category, quotes the erroneous second line, and explains the missing negative on the 2 (−6·+2 = −12). It traces the consequence through the third line, which it quotes accurately, to x=27. It explicitly labels later lines as downstream. It is somewhat long but contains no full replacement solution and no clarity or respect defect." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "33dcc0d4a18d17d9b951": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Category field '7. Attention & Detail Error' is given while the explanation says no error in this category can be substantiated, which is internally inconsistent. Uncertain: whether an unreduced but equivalent bound counts as an error is a convention question.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "'there is no supported earliest mathematical error to locate': the response correctly notes 5/70 = 1/14, but it omits the one supported deviation in image_1 and the student answer, namely that the circled bound x > 5/70 (from 5/10 × 1/7) was never reduced to lowest terms. The expert and the other valid readings target exactly this unreduced fraction, so the response misses the identifiable error instead of flagging equivalence while still naming it.", "right_amount": "Both required fields are present. The explanation briefly traces the visible key steps and shows that 5/70 equals 1/14. It states the evidence limitation that no earliest error is supported and flags the conflict with the 'incorrect' premise, which the scope explicitly allows. It gives no replacement solution, is clear and respectful, and is concise. Any tension between choosing category 7 and saying no error is substantiated belongs to correctness or relevance, not to sufficiency or scope." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "aecb71b2bf800905fcce": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Calculation vs Attention & Detail boundary for an omitted fraction reduction is open; both defensible.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "Category and explanation are both supplied. It locates a specific step: the final circled x > 5/70 after (5/10)×(1/7). It explains the mismatch as an omitted reduction to 1/14. It also notes the numerical equivalence, which addresses the conflict with the reference. It confirms rather than redoes earlier steps, so it stays within scope. The wording is clear and respectful. Whether this counts as a genuine error is a correctness or relevance question, not a Q4 defect." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "17aa8b13521b4a36474c": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Calculation vs Attention & Detail boundary for an omitted fraction reduction is open; both defensible.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "It supplies the category, flags the conflict with the supplied data, and locates the discrepancy at the unreduced 5/70. It explains the cause and records legibility uncertainty about the crossed-out terms, as the task permits. It is longer than the other responses, but it describes the student's own steps rather than giving a new solution, so it does not breach the assistance scope. It is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "3ad55aeb3477f0bcc144": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Category boundary for the omitted km->m conversion (Procedural / Attention & Detail / Problem Comprehension) is genuinely open; Procedural defensible. The closing 'conflict' note (left 4896 already equals the meter value) is slightly confusing, since image_1 shows 4.896 with a decimal dot after the 4, but the response hedges it.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "Both required fields are present. The response locates the error at the final reported value, 2.448 = 4.896 ÷ 2, explains the missing km→m conversion, and separates that error from the correct multiplication. The 4896 ÷ 2 = 2448 calculation is a short supporting calculation, not a full replacement solution. It is somewhat wordy, and the 'conflict' note is not a true source conflict, but the help stays clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "c1c60d201eb0cc89fe26": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Category boundary open; Attention & Detail matches the expert's 'did not notice' framing.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response is concise but complete. It gives a category, locates the error at submitting 2.448 in a blank asking for meters, and explains the omitted conversion (2.448 km = 2448 m). It also says the visible multiplication is not the error. Nothing outside the task's scope is added, and the explanation is clear." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "b2f01760a6b755167c96": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Category boundary open; Problem Comprehension defensible for not registering the required unit.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "Both fields are supplied. The response locates the mismatch in how the result is expressed, leaving the depth in km, and explains the missing ×1000 conversion. It treats the factor-of-1000 discrepancy as a consequence rather than an arithmetic slip. Restating the reference conversion is brief support, not a full re-solution. The response is longer than needed but remains clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "9316348b5f60bc92775e": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Q2 left as pass: given its (mis)reading the internal mathematics is valid, and Transcription is a defensible category for a sign changed while copying a term between lines; the defect is the reading and the location.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'the student writes the expression as \"2x^4 - 2x^2 - 1 + 13x^4\"': in image_1 the sign before 2x^2 in the first line is a plus (a horizontal stroke crossed by a slanted vertical, formed like the '+' before 13x^4), so line 1 reads 2x^4 + 2x^2 - 1 + 13x^4. The response invents a minus sign in line 1.", "right_place": "'The earliest supported error is in the first line of the scratchwork... copied it with a minus sign': line 1 is a correct removal of the parentheses. The earliest supported error is the change from +2x^2 (line 1) to -2x^2 in line 2 (15x^4 - 2x^2 - 1). Because of the misreading, the response targets a step that is not erroneous and treats line 2 as a correct consequence.", "right_amount": "All required parts are present. It gives one category, names a specific line as the error location, explains the sign mismatch, and separates that originating error from its downstream effect on the second line. It does not supply a replacement solution, and the language is clear and respectful. Its reading of the first line as \"-2x^2\" is a faithfulness or correctness issue, not a separate Q4 sufficiency or scope defect." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "721f1a4e287415b1ac89": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Calculation / Attention & Detail / Transcription boundary for an unmotivated sign flip on a carried-over term is open; Calculation defensible.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "It supplies all required parts. It gives one category, quotes the second line as the earliest error, and explains that +2x^2 has no like term and should be carried over unchanged. It also traces the error into the final answer. The only arithmetic it adds is the brief 2x⁴ + 13x⁴ = 15x⁴ check, which is within scope. The wording is clear and appropriate." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "119deaf549c52655fc90": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Category boundary open; Attention & Detail defensible.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "It is concise but complete. It gives one category, quotes the second line where +2x^2 becomes -2x^2, explains why combining the x⁴ terms cannot change the x² term's sign, and calls this the earliest visible error. The second line is itself the final answer, so a separate downstream-consequence statement is not materially missing. There is no out-of-scope solution, and the language is clear." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "493ef436e749126bc70d": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Denominator in line 2 reads 15 or 75 (ambiguous hooked 1/7); final '=8'-like mark is overwritten/ambiguous.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'The visible work first converts the division correctly into multiplication by the reciprocal' and 'an extra s²t² factor is introduced' in the next step: image_1 line 1 already shows an s²t prefactor outside the radical, √(18/5 t × 2/5 t). The response silently omits that written prefactor and reports line 1 as clean.", "correct": "'converts the division correctly into multiplication by the reciprocal': in line 1 the divisor √(5/2 s²t) is replaced by ×(2/5)t, which is not its reciprocal (it should be 2/(5s²t)), and the s²t outside the radical is unjustified (√(s²t³) gives st√t). Line 1 is therefore not a correct transformation, although its RHS √(36/25 t²) happens to equal the correct radicand.", "right_place": "'The earliest supported error occurs in the next visible step, where the student rewrites this as s²t²·√(36/75)': the earliest supported error is the first line (s²t extracted outside and the divisor mishandled). The response diagnoses a later step and misses the originating error.", "right_amount": "The response supplies all three required functions. It gives one category, names a specific step, explains what changed, and separates the final answer as a downstream consequence. It does not give a full replacement solution and flags ambiguous writing. Whether it picked the earliest error, given the visible s²t prefactor in the first line, is a relevance/correctness matter, not a Q4 gap." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "6af0fd737adcb076c67e": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Locates the line-1 s²t prefactor as the earliest error. Does not also mention the ×(2/5)t divisor handling in the same step, which is not required. Procedural vs Conceptual (expert) boundary is open.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response provides a single category and locates the extra s²t factor outside the first radical. It explains the mismatch with a short supporting calculation (s² cancels, t³/t=t²), which is allowed. It treats the later s²t² prefactor as carried-forward error and flags that the reported final answer is not visible. It is concise and stays in scope." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "35c273b10a4d0837009d": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Earliest error correctly placed in line 1. Downstream description is misread: it quotes 's t²√(36/25) = 6', but image_1 line 2 shows s²t²√(36/15 or 75) = 8 (overwritten). Not consequential to the diagnosed earliest error. Its rendering 's²t·√(18/5·t) × (2/5)·t' also places ×(2/5)t outside the radical, whereas the overline spans it.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response provides a single category, quotes the first rewritten line as the error location, and explains the mismatch. It states which of the two mismatches it treats as earliest, separates downstream steps, and notes the disconnect with the recorded answer 15/4·√5. The corrective expressions (st√t, √(2/(5s²t))) are short supporting statements, not a full solution. It is somewhat lengthy but still clear. The claimed student belief and possible misreadings concern correctness/relevance, not Q4." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "cec6c8e9530374f7293e": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'This omitted \"−2\" is the originating error; the later use of 104 ... is a downstream consequence': 47+55=102 is a valid partial step toward 47+55−2, and simply omitting −2 would leave 102, not 104. The 104 used in image_1 (102+2) cannot be a consequence of omission, so the causal explanation and the 'incomplete procedure' classification rest on a false account.", "right_place": "Locates the error at 'the first visible step — the left-hand sum \"47 + 55 = 102\"', which is correct intermediate work. The supported earliest error is the switch from 102 to 104 (the 2 added instead of subtracted) before the vertical multiplication 104×74; the response treats that as a downstream symptom.", "right_amount": "The response supplies all three required parts. It gives one category. It locates the error as the missing −2 after 47+55=102 and also discusses the later 104. It explains the mismatch against 47+55−2=100. It separates the originating error from downstream results. It does not give a full replacement solution: the 74×(47+55−2)=74×100 line is a short supporting correction. Whether its choice of originating error is right is a correctness matter, not a separate Q4 defect." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "4567730c3df79820c61c": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Calculation vs Attention & Detail boundary for +2 instead of −2 is open; Calculation is defensible and matches the expert's 'calculated −2 as +2'.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response concisely supplies the category, the location (102 correctly computed, then 104 used) and the mathematical mismatch (102−2=100 was required; 104 has the effect of adding 2). It states the genuine evidence limitation that the intervening operation is unwritten. It notes that the 104×74=7696 multiplication is downstream and correct. No prohibited extra solution is given." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "34422dfdc7a7c120c7be": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Calls the left sum 'omitting the required −2', which is slightly imprecise (102 is a valid partial step), but it correctly identifies 104 = 47+55+2 as the originating slip and notes that the moment the 2 was added is unwritten. Category boundary open.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response provides the category, locates the sign/term slip in forming the combined factor (102 on the left, 104 used on the right), and explains it against 47+55−2=100. It identifies the partial products 416 and 728 and the total 7696 as downstream. It flags that the 102→104 change is not shown in the writing. It stays within scope, with only brief supporting arithmetic and clear, respectful language." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "0afe3a0f16c44c87cef6": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Quotient digit in image_1 is overwritten but reads as 6. Logical Reasoning matches the expert; the Logical / Conceptual / Problem Comprehension boundary for remainder interpretation is open.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "It gives both required fields, a category and an explanation. The explanation names the faulty step: using 6 as the final blanket count despite the remainder of 4. It says why this is wrong: 36 pigs are seated and 4 are left over. It also separates this from the arithmetic, which it treats as correct. It is concise, clear and respectful, and it gives no full replacement solution." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "54500dafbc902c1f0a7b": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Conceptual is defensible given the open category boundary. 'reflects a misunderstanding of what the remainder means' is a mild belief inference.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "It gives the category and an explanation. The explanation describes the visible division (6 ) 40, 36, remainder 4) and locates the error as reporting the quotient 6 while ignoring the remainder. It explains why the remainder must be rounded up and separates the originating error from the downstream answer of 6. The supporting calculation 6 + 1 = 7 is short and allowed. The text is somewhat long but still a targeted explanation, not a full solution, and the language is respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "f48a75cdbe03a0b3ffa2": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Problem Comprehension is defensible given the open category boundary. 'read the task as \"how many blankets can be fully filled\"' is a mild, unsupported belief inference, but not framed as persistent.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "It gives both required fields. The explanation identifies the error as reporting the whole-number quotient 6 as the final answer. It explains that the 4 leftover pigs need one more blanket and states that the division itself is valid. It is a little redundant but clear. It contains only a brief supporting calculation and no full solution, and the tone is respectful. Whether its claim about how the student read the task is supported is a matter for the correctness and relevance criteria, not this one." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "89f12db7305980680c0d": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "unverifiable", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'the product beneath 220 appears to be written as 168': in image_1 the middle digit of the product is a loosely formed loop-and-stem (it could be 6 or 9). The remainder written beneath it (…20, consistent with 22 and a brought-down 0) fits 220 − 198 = 22, not 220 − 168 = 52, so the 168 reading is not supported and cannot be confirmed.", "right_place": "Diagnoses only 'This multiplication error' in the long division and gives no account of the student answer 1.7. The quotient digits 1.6 are correct, and the supported error is rounding to one decimal place (1.66… -> 1.7) instead of the required two decimal places (1.67). The response misses this error that produced the wrong answer, and even a 168 product would not explain 1.7.", "right_amount": "The response supplies all three required components briefly: a category, a location (the product written beneath 220 in the long division) and the cause (33 × 6 = 198, not 168). It separates this from the later subtraction and rounding. It gives no replacement solution, and its language is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "7e95de29a00a91919c60": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Category boundary Attention & Detail vs Conceptual (expert: misunderstanding of 'two decimal places') is open; both defensible.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response gives a category, locates the error at the final rounding to 1.7 and explains the mismatch with the two-decimal-place requirement. It also flags that the lower scratch entries are hard to read. The figure 1.67 comes from the supplied reference, so this is not a prohibited disclosure. Whether the diagnosis is correct is outside Q4. The response is somewhat long, but it stays clear and within scope." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "52d7825482c4843bfeab": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Calls the lower scratchwork 'too faint'; it is cramped and overlapping rather than faint, which is not consequential. Category boundary Attention & Detail vs Conceptual is open.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response provides a category, locates the error at the rounding step and explains that the student rounded to one decimal place instead of two. It notes that the lower scratchwork is faint and explains why its localisation does not depend on those lines. There is no replacement solution beyond the supplied reference value, and the language is respectful. Any diagnostic inaccuracy belongs to other criteria." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "8c0f9e2c02e5839f1f52": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Does identify 'leaving the coefficient (6m+7) non-zero', which is the substantive defect. Chronology of the top-right line relative to the three-line derivation is not established by its position.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'This is an invalid transformation ... The right side of the rearranged equation is 2m+9n, not 0': setting 2m+9n = 0, which gives (6m+7)x = 0, is one of the two conditions required for infinitely many solutions, so it is not itself invalid. What is missing is the companion condition 6m+7 = 0. Also, 'the recorded answer m = 0, n = 0 is not obtainable from the visible work' is false: m = n = 0 satisfies the condition 2m+9n = 0 that the top-right line encodes, which is a direct route to the submitted answer (with 6m+7 = 7 ≠ 0 left unchecked).", "right_amount": "All required functions are present. The response gives one category from the list and locates a specific step (the top-right line). It explains the claimed mismatch, separates that step from the unshown derivation of 0, 0 and flags a conflict. It gives no full replacement solution: the only result disclosed is m = −7/6, a short supporting remark. Whether treating (6m+7)x = 0 as an error is correct belongs to correctness/relevance, not Q4. The wording is lengthy but clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "67db2efe41982fff16ce": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Chronology of the top-right line is not established by its position; the response assumes it was written after the derivation.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'The equation (6m+7)x = 0 is not a valid consequence of the original equation and does not encode the 2m+9n = 0 requirement': (6m+7)x = 0 is exactly what (6m+7)x = 2m+9n becomes when the required condition 2m+9n = 0 is imposed, so it does encode that requirement and follows validly under it. The condition actually missing is 6m+7 = 0 (m = n = 0 gives 7x = 0, a unique solution). The explanation names the wrong missing condition.", "right_amount": "The response supplies a valid category, quotes the step it identifies as the error and explains the claimed invalid transformation. It explicitly labels the submitted 0, 0 as a downstream consequence and notes the work is missing. It states the two conditions from the reference but does not solve them, so it stays within scope. The text is concise, clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "ffa6cf4be194ec030b18": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Appropriately notes the unwritten derivation of m = n = 0 and explains the mismatch (6m+7 = 7 gives 7x = 0, a unique solution). It does not link m = n = 0 to the top-right line (2m+9n = 0 satisfied), but that is not required. Expert's account (coefficient condition only) differs from the visible line, which reflects the constant-term condition only.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response gives a valid category. It uses the permitted source-limitation statement: no derivation of m = n = 0 is visible, so the first erroneous step cannot be located. It then explains the supported mismatch with a short check (7x = 0 has only one solution). It does not solve for the correct m and n. The explanation is concise, clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "c724e12ab78cab9049b6": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Expert explanation ('may not have seen ... 2 tons') also conflicts with the visible 2)3 division. Location (the final step producing 3) is acceptable.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'The visible work (add, convert to tons, stop)' and 'with no division by the truck's 2-ton capacity': image_1 top right shows a legible long division 2)3 with quotient 1. The response calls this note 'too unclear to read reliably' but then asserts with certainty that no division was performed, which omits visible writing.", "correct": "'with no division by the truck's 2-ton capacity' and 'the student failed to comprehend that the question asks for a trip count constrained by the 2-ton load': image_1 (top right) shows the long division 2)3 with quotient 1. The student did divide the 3 tons by the 2-ton capacity, so the claimed mechanism (no division, total tons taken as trips) is contradicted, and the Problem Comprehension rationale built on it is unsupported.", "right_amount": "The response supplies all required components: one category, a precise location (the final answer 3 taken from the total tonnage) and a mathematical explanation of the mismatch. Its brief correct-route note is a short supporting calculation, not a full replacement solution. It treats the small note beside 2420 as unreadable rather than as a division; that is a reading/accuracy issue, not a missing Q4 component. The language is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "1921c6e93aa721a382a0": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Location (the final step producing 3, after correct addition and conversion) is acceptable, so Q3 pass.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'the student never uses the truck's given capacity of 2 tons and performs no division of the total by that capacity': image_1 top right shows the long division 2)3 with quotient 1 written above. The response omits visible writing and asserts its absence with certainty.", "correct": "'This is a missing/incorrect step in the required procedure (total ÷ capacity...)': the division 3 ÷ 2 = 1 is present, so the error is not a skipped division step. It lies in going from the quotient 1 (remainder 1) to the answer 3 rather than 1+1 = 2. The Procedural rationale rests on a false account of the work.", "right_amount": "The response provides a category, locates the error immediately after '3000 kg = 3 t' and explains the missing division-and-round-up step. It separates the originating error from the downstream answer 3. It does not give a full replacement solution. Its claim that no division was performed conflicts with the visible '2)3' with quotient 1, but that misreading is a correctness/relevance issue rather than a Q4 sufficiency or scope defect." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "d3ca1bc629932b13c628": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Correctly reads the started division 3 ÷ 2 with quotient 1 and states the localization limit for how 3 was reached. Logical Reasoning is defensible.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response faithfully notes the visible started division of 3 by 2 with quotient 1. It states a genuine evidence limitation: no visible step shows how the answer 3 arose. It then identifies the supported erroneous conclusion and briefly explains why 3 trips is not the minimum. This fulfils the location and cause functions within scope, concisely and respectfully." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "f39afd41cdbfb2fd7f3b": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Goes one step past the reference (substitution) by also clearing denominators to 2a^2-17a+8=0; judged as part of one 'convert to quadratic' key step, not a full solution.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" }, "459ef8c2386cd4b299ac": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Combines substitution with clearing denominators (2a^2-17a+8=0); explicitly stops before solving the quadratic. Judged within scope.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" }, "5c9e23e484c6033b5b09": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" }, "d42b10e9a958495f26fe": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Taking logs is a valid alternative to the reference (quotient rule rewrite to 4^x/16=60), so Q3 passes, though the student's written quotient-rule cue is dismissed because of the misreading.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"The small base-9 expression on the right, 9^{m-5}/(9^3/9^3), is a separate same-base scratch note and is not part of this equation\": image_1 right side reads a^{m-n} = a^m/a^n (the quotient rule, letter a), not powers of 9; the misreading leads the response to dismiss the written rule as unrelated." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" }, "e4ddafc8ccb48843a9b5": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Log approach is a valid alternative; execution also divides by log 4 to x-2=log_4 60, a small extension still short of solving for x.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"a vertical stack of powers of 9 (9^{m-5}, 9^3, 9^3 ...)\" and \"That stack uses base 9\": image_1 shows a^{m-n} over a^m/a^n, i.e. the quotient rule with base a; the response invents base-9 expressions and treats the note as unrelated." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" }, "6aec3dc8740edd7a945f": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" }, "ce14f075001e360653ab": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Mathematics checked: (sqrt5-1)^3 = 8sqrt5-16 = 8(sqrt5-2), so the final value is correct. Calling cubing 'circular' dismisses the reference step but the denesting method is a valid alternative.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "fail" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "Excess solution disclosure: Execution solves the whole problem, deriving A=5/4, B=1/4 and \"x = cube-root(sqrt5-2) = (sqrt5-1)/2\". The single next step after 'let x = cube-root(sqrt5-2)' is cubing to x^3 = sqrt5-2; the response skips this and gives the final simplified answer." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" }, "eab2e8b658fd70f0bab3": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" }, "0b8d94bb6077de5272fe": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" }, "f651e5e7e477286ad3be": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" }, "56c2eb7b17cba3a611be": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" }, "9a75bb93e42a8df19edc": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "The probability 9/19 itself is correct; the misread option list adds a confusing instruction to re-check the choices.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"as they appear - 0/19, 9/20, 10/19, 10/20, 11/20 - none equals 9/19\": image_1 option A is printed 9/19; the response misreads it as 0/19 and wrongly tells the student no option matches and to re-check the denominators." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" }, "ba379a80e546ea2b0aaf": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Blue note in image_1 reads D = 60 theta (distance-angle relation); response transcribes it as 'D = 60 deg' with a stray degree sign but interprets it as the 60 nmi/degree constant and flags the ambiguity, so Q1 kept as pass (borderline).", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "fail" }, "reasons": { "correct": "\"this places B at 50 + 105 - 90 = 55 S\": 50+105-90 = 65, not 55; the correct latitude is 105-50 = 55 S, so the written computation is invalid even though the stated value is right.", "right_amount": "Excess solution disclosure: beyond the next step (distance = 900x7 = 6300 nmi, per reference), the response also converts to degrees and boxes the final answer to part (b), \"105 deg\", and adds B's latitude." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" }, "97bf9f354da8540951fe": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" }, "f5b04f82832aa4e8c824": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "fail" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"The only computed value written is the blue D = 60 deg\": image_1 shows 'D = 60 theta', the relation distance = 60 x angle, not a computed value of 60 degrees.", "right_place": "Unsupported error allegation: \"correcting the written value ... the written D = 60 deg is replaced by 105 deg\" treats the student's valid relation D = 60 theta as a wrong answer; the student's approach is valid and only needs D = 900x7 computed.", "right_amount": "Excess solution disclosure: response merges distance and conversion and gives the final answer \"the difference between A and B is 105 deg\", beyond the single next step (distance 6300 nmi)." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" }, "20a01f63cc06318f764a": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" }, "d7156a9d1e5159099fc0": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Arithmetic 3.142 x 196 = 615.832 is correct; the defect is the invented prerequisite error.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "Unsupported error allegation: \"Correct the unsupported height substitution by retaining h as unknown\". image_3 records the data h = 20 alongside r = 6, R = 10, and the valid working in image_4 continues from it; nothing shows h = 20 is wrong, so the response abandons a valid approach instead of giving the next step (36+60+100 = 196, V = (62.84/3)(196))." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" }, "a664e5df616b9ffc7858": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Arithmetic checked: 62.84 x 196 = 12316.64, /3 = 4105.55. Claim that the student 'is treating 62.84/3 as a quantity to be divided immediately' is an inference from pen position only.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "fail" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "Excess solution disclosure: the next step is summing the bracket (196); the response also multiplies and divides to the final answer \"V approx 4105.55 cm^3\", completing the whole problem." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" }, "2d17543479bddc983b74": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Goes slightly past reference (q in {2,3}) by testing p = 8, 9 and closing case 1; judged a minimal extension, not a full solution.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" }, "fce98727c793dd07e226": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Also tests p = q+6 for q = 2, 3 to close case 1; minimal extension beyond reference.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" }, "9c0a914ee3d73983b9c5": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Also tests p = q+6 for q = 2, 3 to close case 1; minimal extension beyond reference.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" }, "45612e06b30371f45199": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict: reference sets a+b=3, a-b=13 for Case I (following the student's ordered-pair enumeration, a case later rejected); response assigns a+b=13, a-b=3 using a+b>a-b. Mathematically valid alternative, accepted.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" }, "9636025cb0ec2ac99bcd": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict as for other responses (a+b=13, a-b=3 vs reference a+b=3, a-b=13); valid alternative. Also solves the system to (8,5), one step past the reference; borderline scope but one case only, not the full solution (39x1 case remains).", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" }, "d11d012560a7a3bc16d5": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict (a+b=13, a-b=3 vs reference a+b=3, a-b=13); valid alternative, and the response explicitly shows the reverse ordering gives b=-5. Solves Case I to (8,5), one step past the reference; borderline scope, not the full solution.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" }, "90fe6b7cd5f10780e475": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" }, "421798c49d89bbac66c9": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Squaring is mathematically valid and the quartic expansion x^4-8x^3+6x^2+40x+25 is correct; the issue is abandoning the student's in-progress line. Borderline: some coders may accept squaring as a supported alternative.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "\"the next decisive move must eliminate the radical, not reshape the right side\" / \"Square both sides of sqrt(11-x) = x^2-4x-5\": image_1 last line shows the student mid-way through a valid completing-the-square move (x^2 - 2.x.2 + 2^2 - 5 - 4); the response sets this valid in-progress approach aside as a 'detour' instead of finishing it to (x-2)^2 - 9, so it does not address the student's actual current step." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" }, "fa42ed8a03ed2c592137": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" }, "3a37b725956a7467d627": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference next step is f'(x)=5x^4-3x^2+1; response gives this (with positivity) in Insight and prescribes bracketing f(1)<0 0 is correct.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" }, "081b80a2eb19e707c787": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Goes one step past the reference (a^2b^2c^2=120000) by taking the square root; treated as part of the single key step 'find abc'.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "\"abc = 200\\sqrt{3} (positive root, consistent with all three pairwise products being positive)\" — image_1 gives only ab=40, bc=50, ca=60; positive pairwise products force a,b,c to share a sign but do not force abc>0 (a,b,c all negative also works), so (abc)^2=120000 gives abc=±200√3; the stated justification for discarding the negative root is invalid." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" }, "a68e20a8bc7803929873": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Includes square root beyond reference a^2b^2c^2=120000; acceptable as completing 'determine abc'. Correctly keeps ±.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" }, "1a88ccb305dfaa3e3228": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Takes positive root 'as is standard' — an explicitly flagged convention rather than a false derivation; strictly abc=±200√3. Square root goes slightly beyond reference.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" }, "62432234bd14387ecb7a": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Q4 kept pass: all three sections present; insufficiency stems from the wrong claim already recorded in Q2/Q3.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"the visible figure supplies no value for ∠AOB and no diameter or side‑equality mark\" — image_1 shows tick marks on chords AC and AB (just below the level of O), indicating AB = AC; the response misses this given.", "correct": "\"x is not determined by the figure as drawn; one given ... is missing\" — with the marked AB = AC, ∠ACB = (180°−65°)/2 = 57.5° and x = 57.5°−25° = 32.5° is determined. The fallback 'if AB is a diameter ... x = 65°' is also inconsistent with the figure (O does not lie on AB).", "right_place": "Instead of the next step (use isosceles △ABC to get ∠ACB = 57.5°), the response targets an invented missing-given problem and tells the student to retrieve a given; the guidance does not address the student's actual next move." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" }, "f290f684fc2216c2d791": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Mathematics correct throughout; correctly flags malformed line 180°−130° = 50°/2.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "fail" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "\"x = ∠ACO = ∠ACB − ∠OCB = 57.5° − 25° = 32.5°. Thus x = 32.5°\" — after the next key step (∠ACB = 57.5°, as in the reference) the response continues to the problem's final answer, disclosing the full solution beyond the single next step." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" }, "8b0fb2fc647c4aefeba1": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" }, "69f4ed07c2e87a4136a1": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Rational-root testing is a valid alternative to the reference decomposition −100 = −125 + 25.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "\"f(1)=1-1-100=-99\" — 1−1−100 = −100, not −99; an arithmetic error in the executed root test (the final root K=5 is still correct, but the shown computation is wrong)." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" }, "07edf7dc632390d32462": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Valid alternative (rational root theorem). Bundles root-finding with synthetic division to (k−5)(k^2+4k+20); slightly beyond a single step but stops before resolving k, so not treated as excess disclosure.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" }, "3cf8b1b4cb763867c58c": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Valid alternative to reference.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" }, "25e1a668fd3bed63c516": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" }, "8bf0f4fa603715dac084": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Insight section is brief but supplies the key detail and rationale.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" }, "0eec44d0050774f71b1a": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" }, "8eee0b37daadd0ac21ee": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Mathematics of the b=0 case is correct: gcd(−1,0)=1 gives (a,b)=(−1,0). Uncertain whether coders would treat the omitted case as an authorized earliest-error correction.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "Prescription \"Correct the sign restriction to b≥0, and examine the omitted case b=0\" — the b=0 omission (red note 'b positive', image_2) is genuine, but it does not invalidate the student's current b>1 branch b(b^2+1)=a^2+a; the response never gives the next step there (e.g., gcd(a,b)=1 and b | a(a+1) ⇒ b | a+1, a+1=kb, as in the reference), so it redirects to a side case instead of the student's actual stuck point." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" }, "380728bab6d24fa866e9": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "fail" }, "reasons": { "correct": "\"from gcd(a,a+1)=1 deduce b∣a or b∣a+1 ... they must divide distinct terms\" and the result \"no coprime integer solutions with b>1\" — b can split its prime factors between a and a+1 (e.g., 6 | 2·3), so the matching {a,a+1}={b,b^2+1} does not follow; indeed (a,b)=(5,3) gives 25+5=30=27+3 with gcd(5,3)=1, contradicting the conclusion. Also 'hence b≥1' from a^2+a≥0 should be b≥0.", "right_amount": "Execution solves the whole b>1 branch and states the final answer \"the only solutions are (a,b)=(1,1) and (−2,1)\" — a full solution far beyond the single next step (reference: b | a+1, write a+1=kb)." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" }, "047604d179a6f3df6e12": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Correctly flags that the 'b positive' note supports only b≥0.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "fail" }, "reasons": { "correct": "\"By unique factorization, two coprime factor pairs with equal products must match pairwise\" — false (e.g., 5·6 = 3·10 with both pairs coprime); hence \"There are no solutions for b>1\" is wrong: (a,b)=(5,3) satisfies 5^2+5=30=3^3+3 with gcd 1.", "right_amount": "Execution works through all cases and gives the final answer \"(a,b)=(−2,1) and (1,1)\" — a full solution beyond the single next key step." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" }, "92340fffafa905230be7": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Matches reference (both limits evaluated, result 0).", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" }, "6785c90712e1dcd92c45": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Matches reference.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" }, "a42b33bac78ca4aa148d": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Flags that u=t^{-1}→∞ covers only t→0^+ (valid rigor point, not an invented error) and evaluates only the numerator limit; does not combine with denominator to get 0, but the key next operation is completed.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" }, "9fc42be103cbe6b3ae2f": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Adds du and v beyond reference u=ln x, dv=dx; part of completing the setup.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" }, "20185e4a55d05db167bf": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" }, "6757eaab453a05cffb85": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Mildly speculative about the student's recognition ('has not recognized that the integrand must be read as the product'), not consequential.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" }, "5bbafaf867a703a9053e": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Matches reference.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" }, "495a0378d250c189752c": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Bundles difference of squares, substitution xy=99 and square root to x^2+y^2=202 — beyond the reference step ((x^2+y^2)^2−(2xy)^2=40^2); borderline scope, treated as one 'find x^2+y^2' step since x+y is not reached. Arithmetic checked: 198^2=39204, 202^2=40804.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" }, "207888719dd7bd31b18a": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Adds substitution xy=99 beyond reference; within scope.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" }, "5f31afedb15a23a0f63d": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Extracts common factor (Y−3) one step past reference; within scope.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" }, "01438ea59535e13e5427": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" }, "5f61cee2fcd3cc45fcc6": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Goes beyond factoring to discriminant check and y=3 (borderline scope); stops before solving 5^x=3, so not treated as full-solution disclosure.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" }, "1c60987e5ef5f1ded1ff": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Matches reference; brief but complete.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" }, "73b148eaa597d85df097": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Mathematics, including x=−3 check, is correct.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "fail" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "\"then take the square root of both sides ... x=±√9=±3\" plus verification — after the next step x^2=9 (reference) the response solves the whole problem and verifies both roots, disclosing the final answer beyond the single next operation." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" }, "f7dd11f1ea322b3a14dd": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" }, "d4c45c0c075a3219c402": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Valid alternative to reference (rewrites each bracket as (sin x ± cos x)/√(sin x cos x) and splits). 'numerator is exactly the derivative of (sin x ∓ cos x)' holds up to sign for the second bracket; not material.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" }, "17eac45da168d639f2f3": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Valid alternative: substitution u=√tan x−√cot x; derivative and u^2+2 = tan x+cot x checked and correct.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" }, "e3f98821316739ed644e": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Valid alternative to reference.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" }, "623d992af6278094d110": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Mathematics correct (bearing of O from P = 195°, so arc at O = 15°). Problem text not visible, so it is uncertain whether 15° is the final answer; the arc at O is the only marked unknown.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "fail" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "\"x=60°−45°=15°. The blank angle at O (the bearing of P from O) is 15°\" — the next step in image_1 is establishing the 60° interior angles of the equilateral △OPQ (reference); the response takes that as given and carries on through the supplement 45° and the alternate-angle argument to the value of the only marked unknown (the arc at O), i.e. it resolves the target rather than giving a single next step." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" }, "3259779f6d0690e35bdc": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Format: [Operation Execution] appears before [Operation Prescription]; all three sections present. Mathematics correct.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "fail" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "\"This single operation resolves the marked unknown at O as 15°\" — the response chains ∠OPQ=60°, bearing 135°+60°=195°, back-bearing 195°−180°=15°, plus a coordinate check; it resolves the only marked unknown (arc at O) instead of stopping at the single next step (60° interior angles, as in the reference)." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" }, "8dbb05e68224296922e3": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Matches reference.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" }, "0c48544deb0ce8839df5": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Student's line passes through (0,1),(1,0),(4,-3), i.e. x+y=1; shading extends into negative x/y. Teacher reference (not shading/labeling) is vague; response is a supported alternative.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response names the specific line error: it is graphed through about (0,1) and (1,0) rather than at x+y=12. It also names the shading problem: the region extends into negative quantities. Both are actionable for a teacher. It does not solve the problem or add unrequested hints." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "07ed36a6f6f9eab3daf5": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Terse: 'Misplaced line' does not say which line (x=4 is correct, diagonal is x+y=1); 'wrong shading' is defensible only as wrong feasible region (direction relative to student's lines is correct, but region bounded by wrong line and includes negatives).", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "fail" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The student graph has two lines: a red vertical line at x=4 and a blue diagonal line. \"Misplaced line\" does not say which one is wrong or how. \"Wrong shading\" also gives no indication of what is wrong with the shading. The teacher is left without usable information, so the assistance is materially unclear." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "cd455e39aee705535434": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "'shading wrong' defensible as the resulting region is wrong (bounded by x+y=1, includes negatives), though shading direction itself is correct.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "\"Wrong diagonal line\" identifies the specific feature carrying the earliest error, the misplaced x+y line. \"Shading wrong\" is brief, but the response still supplies the core diagnosis within the five-word preference. There is no prohibited solution or disrespectful language." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "4ab4c98cc1bdbba79277": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Student table: 3-2, 1-2/3, 2-1 1/3, 5-3 1/3, 10-6 2/3, all proportional. The denominator in the 5 row is tiny and blurry (could be read as 5) but 3 is the most plausible reading and matches the teacher reference.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The teacher asked a yes/no question about whether the student's values keep the ratio. \"Yes.\" answers that directly. It does not solve the problem, recompute the values or add hints, so it stays within scope." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "f7650f1dd390c93247e6": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Same as other 'Yes' response; 5-row denominator slightly ambiguous but most plausibly 3.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "\"Yes\" directly answers the teacher's yes/no question about the student's values. It needs no further detail to be complete. It contains no out-of-scope solution or hint and is clear." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "7bdbf00b63970d744c32": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leaning fail: the reading 3 1/3 is more plausible and the reference supports it.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "unverifiable", "correct": "unverifiable", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'the 5-tablespoon row doesn't' depends on reading the 5-row entry as 3 1/5; the denominator is a tiny blurry glyph that is most plausibly 3 (giving 3 1/3 = 10/3, proportional) and the teacher reference says all values maintain the ratio. Asserted with certainty without noting the ambiguity.", "correct": "'No' is correct only if the entry is 3 1/5; if 3 1/3 (likeliest reading, matches reference) the 5 row is proportional and the verdict is wrong. Image resolution prevents a firm decision.", "right_amount": "The response answers the yes/no question and names the specific row it claims is wrong, without solving the problem or giving correct values. The image shows 5 → 3⅓, which is consistent with 3:2, so the claim is likely wrong. Under the boundary rule, that is a correctness issue rather than a separate Q4 defect. No sufficiency, scope, clarity or respect defect is present." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "1f29c6e861b45a5d207a": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response covers both parts of the teacher's question: the rounded value (20) and a reason (rounding to the nearest ten). It stays brief, adds no unrequested solution or hint, and the language is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "8344adf4045b9fc895e3": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response states the rounded value (20) and gives a rounding rationale ('to nearest ten'). It fulfils both parts of the question within scope and stays concise." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "752c1240204507b3c573": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "'to estimate' gives the purpose of rounding (problem asks to estimate the product) rather than why 20 specifically (nearest ten); defensible but less informative than the reference.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response gives the rounded value (20) and a purpose-based reason ('to estimate'). That reason fits the problem's instruction to estimate the product, so both requested parts are present. It adds no extra solution work and the wording is clear." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "caf150ac387e1c694854": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'No error.' ignores the visible paw label 24 at the fifth tick (paws line reads 4, 8, 12, 16, 24).", "correct": "'No error.' gives unjustified credit: 5 cats have 20 paws, but the student wrote 24.", "right_place": "'No error.' misses the student's actual error (24 instead of 20 on the paws line).", "right_amount": "It gives a direct, concise answer to the teacher's question and adds no solution or hint. The visible paw label of 24 where 20 is expected makes the claim likely incorrect. Under the boundary rule, that is a correctness or relevance matter rather than a separate Q4 sufficiency, scope, clarity or respect defect." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "555cba4b6a730004a350": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "It names the specific written error, the final paw value of 24, and briefly states the expected value, 20. This is a short allowed correction rather than a full replacement solution. The response is clear, appropriately concise and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "3b451465c3da16915ae7": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "It succinctly identifies the erroneous written value, 24, and its correction, 20. Read against the student's number line, where 24 appears only once as the final paw label, the error is unambiguous. It stays within scope and is respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "a58e108bbafba4766eb3": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'4/6, 1/2, 2/3, 3/4' misreads the labels: the image shows 0 (over a faint denominator), 1/3, 2/3, 3/3; there is no 4/6, 1/2 or 3/4 on the line (4/6 appears only in the problem text).", "correct": "The reported set of labelled values is incorrect for three of four labels (1/2 and 3/4 are not on the line; the first label is 0, not 4/6).", "right_amount": "The teacher asked which values were labelled on the number line. The response gives a direct list of four values, one for each visible tick label. It adds no solution, hint or explanation outside scope, and the list is clear. Whether the transcribed values are accurate is a correctness issue, not a separate Q4 defect." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "bd57c3cbff62d2e6e13a": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Denominators under 0 and 1 are faint; '0/3' vs teacher's '0' is a meaning-preserving reading.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response directly lists the four labelled values the teacher asked about. It stays within the transcription scope, with no extra solution or hint. The wording is clear and concise." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "da535e386a65af715dc1": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'4/6, 1/2' misreads the first two labels, which show 0 and 1/3 (the 1 over a faint denominator); 4/6 appears only in the problem text.", "correct": "The reported set of labelled values is incorrect for two of four labels.", "right_amount": "The response supplies a direct list of four labelled values, answering the requested target. It does not solve the problem or add unrequested content. Any transcription inaccuracy belongs to correctness, not to completeness or scope." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "3948bc71c0c44afe80e6": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict: teacher answer says E was plotted at (-3,-2), but the visible 'E.' is above the x-axis at the y=2 line, roughly above A's x-position (-3); the point at (-3,-2) is labelled A (given point). E appears correctly at (-3,2). Axis tick labels are messy but plausibly -7..0.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "It gives a direct answer to the teacher's question about errors, using the task's allowed 'no error' form. It is concise and clear, adds no extra solution or hints, and stays within scope." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "19a8b9af041f34557775": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'No point plotted or labeled.' contradicts the image: a dot labelled 'E.' is visible in the upper-left quadrant at about (-3,2), and A, B, C, D are also plotted and labelled.", "correct": "The error claim is false; the requested point is plotted and labelled.", "right_place": "'No point plotted or labeled.' is an invented error not supported by the work.", "right_amount": "It supplies a specific error diagnosis in five words, without extra solution steps or hints. The image appears to show an 'E.' mark near (-3,2), so the claim is doubtful, but that is a correctness or relevance issue. It is not a separate sufficiency, scope or clarity defect under Q4." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "91a4e57f3a7cd02cd524": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'Did not plot point E.' contradicts the visible 'E.' dot at about (-3,2) in the student's upper-left quadrant.", "correct": "The error claim is false; E is plotted.", "right_place": "'Did not plot point E.' is an invented error (and also differs from the teacher reference's location claim).", "right_amount": "It names a specific error tied to part C (plotting point E) in a short, clear phrase. It adds no extra solution or hints. Whether E is actually visible in the image is a correctness issue, not a Q4 completeness or scope failure." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "33efbe12837caba00546": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Student sketches original plus three rotated copies as a pinwheel sharing the centre vertex Z, drawn by hand without grid.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The teacher asks what strategy the student used. This answer names one: hand-drawn rotations around Z. It does not solve the problem or add hints, and the wording is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "6a4fe660af75684a6af3": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The answer says the student draws rotated triangles around Z, which addresses the strategy question. It adds no solution steps, coordinates or unrequested hints, and it is concise and clear." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "5c976e9778e21b9a434a": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Largely restates the task, but accurately describes the visible approach.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The answer names the strategy as rotating around point Z, which directly answers the teacher's question. It stays within scope, with no extra explanation or solution, and is clearly worded." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "60332f1c6c3c2ff17eee": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Q2 passed because 2×2≠7 is true as stated; the defect is the misreading.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'2×2=7' invents an equals sign: the bottom line reads '2×27' (or '2×2 7') with no '=' written.", "right_place": "Targets only the last line and misses the earliest issue: the work (29, 20+9, 2×27) never checks 93÷7 with quotient×divisor+remainder at all; the first line 29 is already unrelated to the required check.", "right_amount": "The response gives a specific, clearly worded error naming a particular written line. It adds no solution or hint and uses respectful language. Whether this is the right or earliest error, and whether \"2×27\" is transcribed accurately, belongs to accuracy and relevance, not a separate Q4 defect." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "74e21162361c4b571989": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Defensible: the student's work is built on 29 (29, 20+9) rather than the dividend 93 or a quotient/divisor check; 'instead of 93' slightly implies a substitution the image cannot confirm. Uncertain.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response directly states a specific error that a teacher can act on: the student works with 29 rather than the problem's 93. It stays within scope by not giving the quotient, the remainder or the correct check. It is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "70d43a28e2a3eb9831e9": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "'Wrong numbers' is vague but supported (numbers unrelated to checking 93÷7).", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "fail" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'false equation' asserts an equation that is not visible: the lines are '29', '20+9' (a true decomposition) and '2×27', with no '=' written.", "right_amount": "The response is too vague to answer the error question. It does not say which numbers are wrong or which written line is the false equation, although the work contains three lines (29, 20+9, 2×27). The teacher therefore cannot tell what error is being identified, which makes the assistance materially unclear and insufficient." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "477a1ff72214a6da5cd4": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict: teacher answer says student put 300 inside. The dividend is written 3|0|0 with column lines (i.e., 3 with appended zeros, equivalent to 3.00, consistent with quotient 0.06) and 50 outside, so 'Yes' is a defensible reading of the target. '3 inside' omits the appended zeros. Uncertain given reference.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response gives the requested yes/no answer and briefly confirms the placement: 3 inside and 50 outside. It does not solve the division or add unrequested hints, and it is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "4542fb6d300b016253c4": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict: teacher answer says student put 300 inside. The dividend is written 3|0|0 with column lines (i.e., 3 with appended zeros, equivalent to 3.00, consistent with quotient 0.06) and 50 outside, so 'Yes' is a defensible reading of the target.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response directly answers the yes/no question about placement. That is sufficient for the requested target, and it adds no extra work or hints." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "35d60f5d4708ca0a85da": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict: teacher answer says student put 300 inside. The dividend is written 3|0|0 with column lines (i.e., 3 with appended zeros, equivalent to 3.00, consistent with quotient 0.06) and 50 outside, so 'Yes' is a defensible reading of the target.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "A bare 'Yes' fully answers this yes/no question about whether 3 is inside and 50 is outside the division house. It contains no out-of-scope content and is unambiguous." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "482d1df9e63792a39ac2": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Uncertain: the parts are visibly uneven (left part noticeably narrower), so 'unequal' is a true observation; the fail is on the verdict under the estimate instruction.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'No; the parts are unequal.' Both strips are split into three parts labelled/used as thirds (top: 1/?, 1/?, shaded; bottom: three shaded parts, giving 4/3). The problem explicitly says 'Estimate to draw', so roughly sized hand-drawn thirds are acceptable; rejecting the partition as incorrect is not a defensible marking decision (teacher reference: correctly partitioned).", "right_amount": "The response gives a direct yes/no answer to whether each rectangle was partitioned into thirds and adds a brief supporting reason. It does not solve the problem or disclose extra work, and the wording is clear and respectful. Whether the reason is accurate belongs to another criterion." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "7b5365926c3b622c9160": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'bottom rectangle is halves' misreads the drawing: the bottom strip has two vertical dividers forming three shaded parts (with the one shaded top part this makes 4 thirds = 4/3, as written below).", "correct": "'No' is unsupported; both rectangles are partitioned into three parts as an estimate.", "right_place": "Bases the answer on an invented error (halves) rather than the actual partitions.", "right_amount": "The response answers the question directly and names which rectangle fails to show thirds. It stays within scope, with no solving or unrequested hints, and is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "c8305727661099228891": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'bottom has two parts' misreads the drawing: the bottom strip has two vertical dividers and three shaded parts.", "correct": "'No' is unsupported; both rectangles are partitioned into three parts as an estimate.", "right_place": "Bases the answer on an invented error (two parts).", "right_amount": "The response gives a direct answer with a short, specific reason about the bottom rectangle's partition. It does not exceed the assistance scope, and the language is clear and appropriate." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "51a107f30eab2d0d31da": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Measured: first point is at about (1.33, 16) vs V(1.25)=28; peak (4, ~255) and close (8, 0) match. The deviation is real but small (about 1/3 of a 40-visitor grid square) for a task that asks to 'sketch a graph that could represent'; teacher reference says no error. Calling it an error is a strict-tolerance but visually supported judgment. Vague ('wrong location') but identifies the point. Uncertain.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response directly answers the teacher's error question. It names one specific error, the first plotted point, and says it is in the wrong location. It is clear, respectful and concise. It adds no full solution or unrequested hint." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "b79fb8added663eac5a9": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Matches reference; defensible since the task is a sketch and all three statements are approximately represented.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The task explicitly allows writing that there is no error. This response gives that direct answer clearly and within scope. Whether the claim is accurate is a correctness issue, not a separate completeness, scope, clarity or respect defect under the boundary rule." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "7306aab5397205829b62": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "'plotted too low' is visually accurate (point at ~16 visitors, ~1.33 h, below the 28 target); whether a sketch deviation counts as an error is a tolerance judgment, and the reference says no error. Uncertain.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response gives a specific, clear error statement: which point is affected and in what direction it is misplaced. Citing (1.25, 28) only restates the problem's given V(1.25) = 28 to name the point. It does not solve the problem or add a replacement graph. One short sentence is acceptable under the soft length preference." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "af79ae7a0a134774216e": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'Into three vertical strips' is not what is drawn: the student's parallelogram has a single vertical cut near the right end forming a right triangle, with an arrow moving it to the left; the separate grid drawing above has four bold column strips, not three, and is not the decomposition.", "correct": "Describes the wrong decomposition (three strips) instead of one vertical cut producing a triangle and a trapezoid.", "right_place": "Answers about an invented decomposition rather than the student's actual cut-and-move of the right triangle.", "right_amount": "The response gives a direct, clear answer about how the parallelogram was decomposed. It stays within scope: no solution, no hint and no extra explanation. The drawing shows one vertical cut off the right-hand triangle, not three strips, but that is a correctness issue. Under the boundary rule, an incorrect claim alone is not a separate Q4 defect, and no sufficiency, clarity or respect problem is present." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "c34f6e1e1398e7721100": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Accurate but omits that the cut is vertical on the right side and moved left; acceptable at five-word preference.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response directly states the decomposition: a triangle was cut off. This matches the vertical line near the right end of the student's parallelogram. It does not name which side, but it still answers the decomposition question sufficiently, without exceeding scope or adding hints." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "609bff5eb655aa984926": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response states specifically that the right-hand triangle was cut off. This matches the student's vertical line at the right end of the drawn parallelogram. It is concise, within scope and clear." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "f334c5203b71af057a23": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Rightmost shape is a parallelogram with a diagonal cut (non-right angles); left and middle shapes are hand-drawn rectangles.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The teacher asked a yes/no question. A direct 'Yes' completely answers it, clearly and within scope. It adds no solution, hint or unrequested explanation." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "78e24f9beae61dfea465": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'the left one' misidentifies the shape: the leftmost drawing is a (hand-drawn) square/rectangle with a diagonal, i.e. right angles; the non-right-angled quadrilateral is the rightmost parallelogram.", "correct": "Attributes non-right angles to the wrong quadrilateral.", "right_place": "Points the teacher to the wrong figure.", "right_amount": "The response directly answers yes and names a shape briefly, which is permitted context. Naming the left figure, which appears rectangular, is a correctness matter, not a separate Q4 defect. The wording is clear, respectful and does not solve the problem." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "92caedd03ad676a05ed1": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response answers the question directly and briefly identifies which drawn quadrilateral has non-right angles. It stays within scope and is clear, with no extra solution or hints." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "5db8e9aa32ea805d1fd4": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "fail" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"Unclear; shading ambiguous.\" The model is messy but red vertical shading clearly fills the left 3 of the 5 columns (blue horizontal shading marks the 2/3); the claimed ambiguity is not supported by the image.", "right_amount": "The teacher asked how the student represented 3/5. The image visibly shows red shading on the left portion of the grid and blue shading over part of it, so some representation can be described. The response gives only a generic non-answer. It does not say which part of the shading or grid is unclear, and it reports nothing supportable about the representation. That is insufficient help, not a specific evidence limitation." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "221e8175402fd2203782": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Does not state 'of 5', but three red-shaded columns answers the question.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response gives a direct, concise description of the representation (three columns shaded in red). It stays within scope, with no solution or extra hint, and its language is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "3537ea413c0e8fbebef2": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response states the representation directly (3 of 5 columns shaded). This addresses the requested feature concisely, with no out-of-scope solution or disclosure, and is clearly worded." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "4c274027d94c07196612": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict: teacher answer says the values share the ratio, but the last water label reads 16 (not 18) under powder 12; 12:16 is not equivalent to 4:6. Earlier pairs 2:3...10:15 are correct.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response gives the required yes/no answer and names the visible offending pair, 12 over 16. That pair does not match 4:6, while the earlier pairs do. It does not supply the corrected value, so it stays within scope, and it is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "e75cc1e06cd56e0271fe": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict: teacher answer says yes, but the final pair 12:16 breaks the 4:6 ratio (should be 18). 'Last value wrong' is terse but identifies it.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response gives the required answer, 'No', and locates the failure at the end of the line, which matches the final 12/16 pair. The required judgement is supplied, with only slight imprecision about which number is meant. It discloses no correction, so it stays within scope." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "c3aeb5af3c63d5685b03": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict: teacher answer says yes, but the final pair 12:16 breaks the 4:6 ratio.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response answers 'No' and identifies the last pair as the failing one, which corresponds to 12/16 on the student's line. The required function is fulfilled. No corrected value or extra hint is given." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "ad507de51e2c0938d1cb": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "The '20' in the yellow column is written somewhat like '70' but the x4 annotation and 24 confirm 20.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"Row 3 red value wrong\" is not grounded in the image: the red column reads 6, 12, 24, 3, all consistent with the yellow column 5, 10, 20, 2 1/2 (x2, x4, x1/2).", "correct": "\"Row 3 red value wrong\": whichever row is meant (24 for 20 yellow, or 3 for 2 1/2 yellow), the value preserves the 5:6 ratio; the marking decision is incorrect.", "right_place": "Unsupported error allegation: the work has no error (teacher reference agrees), so the response targets an invented error.", "right_amount": "The response does the required job: it names a specific error location in the student's table. It is concise, gives no replacement solution or hints, and is respectful. The claim appears substantively wrong, since the visible values 20 and 24 (×4) are proportional to 5 and 6. Under the boundary rule, that is a correctness issue, not a separate Q4 sufficiency, scope or clarity defect." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "409979e15e4803dce113": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The task explicitly allows 'If there are none, write that there is no error.' The response gives exactly that verdict. The visible student entries (10/12, 20/24, 2 1/2 / 3, with ·2, ·4, ·1/2 annotations) support it. It adds no extra solution and is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "4d7092f2efe87632f325": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response supplies the required no-error answer, using the phrasing the task requests. The student's visible scaled rows (×2, ×4, ×1/2 of 5:6) support it. It contains no extraneous solution or hints and is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "99bc6ffdcdc555a48c7d": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict: teacher answer says the reflection is correct, but the student's X'Y'Z' has the same orientation as XYZ (X' apex on top, Y' left, Z' right, base roughly horizontal) - essentially a translation above the line. A reflection across the slanted line l would reverse orientation and put X' (nearest vertex to l) nearest the line. 'No' is supported.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The teacher asked a yes/no question about whether X'Y'Z' is a correct reflection. The response gives a clear direct answer. It adds no solution, extra hint or unrequested disclosure, and the tone is respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "585d05fa54aabfc8f332": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict: teacher answer says correct, but the drawn image preserves orientation (looks translated, not reflected); X is nearest l in the original but X' is farthest from l in the image. 'No' is supported.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response directly answers the yes/no question about correctness of the reflection. It is clear and concise, and it neither performs the reflection nor adds unrequested explanation." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "d6f023f8d5a4adcb7d9f": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict: teacher answer says correct, but the drawn image preserves orientation (looks translated, not reflected). 'No' is supported.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response supplies the required direct judgment on whether the student's X'Y'Z' is a correct reflection. It has no scope overreach, no clarity defect and no disrespectful language." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "64e93ef916ff01dd82bf": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Student's part C check shows 7 x 2 = 14 and 1 - 1 = 0 rather than 14 x 4 + 0 = 56. 'Wrong numbers' is accurate but vague (does not name 14 x 4 or the subtraction). Reference conflict: teacher answer concerns not showing 56 distributed into 4 groups, which does not match the highlighted part C work.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The teacher asks what errors the student makes. This response gives a direct diagnosis: the Part C check is built on the wrong numbers (7 and 2 rather than the quotient and divisor). It does not say which numbers are wrong, but the diagnosis is still usable and clear. It is concise, respectful and adds no solution or hint." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "826747dade9b6698004b": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Accurately names the main check error (7 x 2 = 14 written instead of quotient x divisor 14 x 4); does not mention the 1 - 1 = 0 subtraction in place of adding the remainder. Teacher reference addresses a different (part A) issue.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "This response identifies a specific error matching the visible work (7×2 = 14). The contrast with 14×4 is a short necessary correction, which is allowed, not a full replacement solution. It is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "54811c042920de40cac2": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Covers both visible check problems (7 x 2 rather than 14 x 4; 1 - 1 = 0 subtraction rather than adding remainder). Teacher reference addresses a different issue.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "This response supplies a direct answer naming two error features: incorrect factors, and subtraction where the task requires addition. It stays within scope with no solution disclosure. The wording is concise and clear enough for a teacher." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "eed5896e7f27b063dc7a": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "The '+' between 7 and 17 is faint at this resolution; even if read as a dash, the result 24 shows addition was performed.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"Incorrectly rewrites 7-(-17) as 7-17\": the formula reads 7-(-17) = 7+17 = 24; the operator before 17 is small/faint but has a vertical stroke and the student's result 24 confirms addition. The response asserts a misreading with unsupported certainty.", "correct": "The claimed error is not present: 7-(-17) = 7+17 = 24 is correct and matches the boxed 24 F; marking it as an error is an incorrect assessment decision.", "right_place": "Unsupported error allegation: the student's work contains no error (teacher reference agrees), so the response targets an invented error.", "right_amount": "The response gives the required function: it names a specific error at a specific step, clearly and concisely, and does not solve the problem. The image shows the student wrote 7+17, so the claim appears inaccurate, but that is a correctness issue, not a separate Q4 sufficiency, scope or clarity defect." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "96e37efde0ef520f4d97": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Response is also unclear about what is reversed.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "fail" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"-17 and -10 reversed\": no -17 label is written on the number line; ticks are labelled 20, 10, 0, -10, -20 in correct order, and the 17 brace runs from 0 to below -10. The claimed reversal is not visible.", "correct": "\"-17 and -10 reversed\" is not a valid error: the number line order and the 7 + 17 = 24 reasoning are correct.", "right_place": "Unsupported error allegation: the work has no error (teacher reference agrees); the response diagnoses an invented one.", "right_amount": "The answer is materially unclear. It does not say what is reversed: positions on the number line, tick labels, operands in the formula, or the direction of the braces. A teacher cannot locate or understand the claimed error from this fragment, so the diagnosis function is not adequately supplied." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "14b4439f416d152a76b6": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The task explicitly allows 'If there are none, write that there is no error.' This response does exactly that, clearly and without extra solution content. The visible work 7-(-17)=7+17=24 and the 24°F conclusion support that answer." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "f24976064301f52f4378": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Student wrote lowercase x, y, z; the response's uppercase is a minor paraphrase. A-F appear to be graphing-tool point names; including them is defensible since they are visible.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "fail" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The teacher asked for the labels the student included. The response lists the vertex letters and x, y, z, but leaves out the primed labels x', y', z' that the student wrote by the reflected triangle. These primed labels are the image labels the problem requires, so a material part of the requested answer is missing." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "56ff3122fa81956f3173": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "A-F appear to be graphing-tool point names; including them is defensible.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "fail" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response lists most labels but leaves out x', which the student wrote beside the bottom vertex at (2,-3) next to D. Because it gives an incomplete list of the labels the student included, the answer omits required content." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "350bdc642e7929935fde": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "A-F appear to be graphing-tool point names; including them alongside x,y,z and x',y',z' is defensible.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response lists every visible label: x, y, z; x', y', z'; and A–F. It answers the teacher's question directly and concisely, without solving or evaluating the problem." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "fd32bb56404cd33fd8b5": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Student wrote 1.5 x 84 = 126.0 yards, then 126 / 3 = 42 (unlabelled) and 1.5 yd -> 4.5 Ft (per bow); no total in feet is stated (teacher reference: student did not say). The response correctly flags that 126 is labelled yards, not feet, though it does not mention the unlabelled 42.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response gives a direct value from the student's work. Its short parenthetical says that value is labeled in yards, which helps answer a question about feet. It does not solve the problem or add a hint, it is clear, and the language is respectful. Whether this is the right value is a correctness issue, not a Q4 sufficiency defect." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "9596dcf46524f4027543": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Uncertain: 4.5 Ft is the only feet-labelled result at the end of the work, so some coders may accept it as the student's stated answer.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"4.5 feet\": the student's 4.5 Ft comes from converting one bow's 1.5 yards (0.5 yd = 1.5 ft, + 3 = 4.5 ft); the student never states this as the amount Jeanne must buy. The student's total is 126.0 yards and no feet total for 84 bows is written, so the attribution is unsupported.", "right_amount": "The response gives a concise direct answer, a value and unit that appear in the student's work ('4.5 Ft'). It adds no extra solution or hint, and it is clear. Any mismatch with the student's intended final total is a correctness/relevance matter, not a separate Q4 defect." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "30a4e7e3fb7d06805838": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Uncertain: 126 / 3 = 42 looks like an attempted yards-to-feet conversion, so 42 is a plausible inferred answer, but it is not stated in feet.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"42 feet.\": 42 appears only as the unlabelled quotient of 126 / 3 in the long division; the student never labels it feet or states it as the amount to buy (the only labels are 126.0 yards and 4.5 Ft per bow). Unsupported certainty about the student's answer.", "right_amount": "The response gives a concise direct numeric answer, drawn from the student's '126 ÷ 3 = 42' work. It does not solve the original problem itself or add hints, and it is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "cb877fbb9171d1898016": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Student's table shows 'red paint cups | 9 cups' and 'green paint cups | 6 cups', matching 3 x 3 and 3 x 2.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "It gives a direct yes/no answer to the teacher's targeted question about whether the diagram shows 9 cups red and 6 cups green. It does not solve the problem or add unrequested hints, and its wording is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "8c3a8578a5e4266a5e8c": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "It directly answers the targeted question and briefly specifies that the numbers are correct. It stays within scope without solving or hinting, and it is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "7eb439b0c01187417e92": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Possible alternative reading: the student did not extend the tape diagram with squares/batches. That could be a valid remark about representation, but the question asks whether the diagram shows 9 and 6 cups, which it does. Wording 'no cups' is materially unclear.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"numbers only, no cups\": the student wrote 'cups' after both values ('9 cups', '6 cups') and in both row labels ('red paint cups', 'green paint cups'); the claim misreads the work (if it means no drawn cup squares, it is unclear).", "correct": "\"No\": the diagram does show 9 cups of red and 6 cups of green for 3 batches (3 x 3 = 9, 3 x 2 = 6), so the negative judgement on the asked quantities is not defensible.", "right_amount": "It gives a direct answer and a short basis, so the required function is present. Its claim of 'no cups' is contestable, since the student wrote 'cups', but it can be read as no cup-square tape diagram. Any inaccuracy belongs to correctness, not to a separate completeness, scope, clarity or respect defect. It adds no solution or hint." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "0a2e5abb2219a899dc09": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Student wrote -2/1 with an arrow pointing to the drawn line through the point.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response answers the teacher's 'how' question directly. It names the written -2/1 fraction, which the image shows beside the line with an arrow pointing to it. It does not solve the problem or add hints, and it is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "a43e4231ca557a0478df": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "LaTeX delimiters \\( \\) in output; minor format issue.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response identifies that the student labeled the slope as -2/1, which matches the annotation beside the line. It is concise and stays within scope. The LaTeX delimiters are a readable formatting choice, not a material clarity defect." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "aafa1b083796819cfe23": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "This minimal answer still supplies the required content: the student wrote -2/1 to show the slope. It is clear, within scope and has no extraneous solving." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "27f3921a69589d98b6cd": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict: teacher answer says no error, but the three drawn lines all converge at the same point on the y-axis near the origin, contradicting the 'different y-intercepts' requirement; no equations are visible in the student image (they could have been entered elsewhere, so that part is less certain).", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response directly answers the teacher's error question. It names two visible problems: the task asks for different y-intercepts, but the three lines appear to cross the y-axis at the same point near the origin, and no equations are written. It is concise, clear and respectful, and it gives no replacement equations or full solution." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "284f290458d0742470e3": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict: teacher answer says no error, but the three drawn lines all converge at the same point on the y-axis near the origin, contradicting the 'different y-intercepts' requirement; no equations are visible in the student image (they could have been entered elsewhere, so that part is less certain).", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response supplies both supported errors: the lines share a y-intercept, and the equations are missing. It stays within the diagnosis scope and does not supply corrected equations or intercepts. The meaning is clear despite the absent final punctuation." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "0a2bcb6ff762678aaa29": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict: teacher answer says no error, but the three drawn lines all converge at the same point on the y-axis near the origin, contradicting the 'different y-intercepts' requirement; no equations are visible in the student image (they could have been entered elsewhere, so that part is less certain).", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response clearly states that the y-intercepts are identical when the task requires different ones, and that the required equations are missing. It gives sufficient diagnostic content and adds no disclosure beyond scope. The language is appropriate." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "ccb7f6ccdf32444adf89": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Possible reference conflict: teacher says no error, but the column placement suggests a two-place shift.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "unverifiable", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "\"No error.\": the written result 5 9 . 0 0 0 (decimal after the 9) reads as 59, which is correct and matches the teacher reference; however, tracing the chart's column lines, the lower 5 sits in the hundreds column and the 9 in the tens column (arrows move each digit two columns, tt->h, t->T), so the place-value shift appears to be two places. Whether this placement counts as an error cannot be settled from the skewed photo.", "right_amount": "The teacher asked what errors the student made, or for a statement that there is none. This response gives a direct no-error answer. It does not solve the problem or add hints, and the wording is clear and respectful. Whether the answer is correct is not a Q4 matter." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "ebfe4c26d86c96e5b7e4": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict: teacher says no error. Tracing the column lines, the lower 5 is in the hundreds column and 9 in the tens column (arrows span two columns from ten-thousands/thousands), so 'shifts two places, not three' is visually supported; the student's decimal point after 9 nevertheless gives 59.000. Uncertain case.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response names a specific error: the digits shift two places instead of three. That fulfils the error-diagnosis request. It does not supply the quotient or a replacement solution, and it is clear and respectful. Whether the image supports this claim, since the student's digits appear to move three columns, is a correctness/relevance question, not a separate Q4 defect." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" }, "ad0b094f7ff4a1115e89": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Possible reference conflict: teacher says no error, but the column placement suggests a two-place shift.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "unverifiable", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "\"There is no error.\": the written 59.000 is correct and matches the teacher reference, but the chart's column lines place the lower 5 in hundreds and 9 in tens (a two-place shift for a divide-by-1,000), so whether the work is error-free cannot be settled from the skewed photo.", "right_amount": "The response directly answers the teacher's question with an explicit no-error statement, using the form the task allows. It contains no prohibited extra solution or hint, and it is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, "history": [ { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "ae2ea266171341d0f27d", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.295Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.295Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "0458f922575584bf080b", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "757963dd545e69ffcaa4", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "9441d5f900f40f9f0d8f", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Mark for this case is genuinely ambiguous (7 followed by a trailing n); 0 seems better supported since the stated value is 7n.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"The student's answer shows '= 7'\" - image_2 reads n(7) = 7n (or n(T) = 7n): a clearly written trailing 'n' follows the 7 and is silently dropped; the 'n(S)' reading of the left symbol is also unsupported.", "correct": "\"the scheme awards credit for the value 7 alone. Therefore the full mark is awarded\" - credit is justified on a value '7' that is not what was written; the written answer is '7n', so the award rests on a silently repaired answer rather than a defended treatment of the trailing n." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "edbb6298cbd17f56b808", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "8f8c99b3299a5e510d51", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Describes the clearly written trailing 'n' only as 'an unclear trailing mark', which understates it; n(T) is a plausible reading of the bracketed character.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "unverifiable", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "\"Credit is therefore awarded, with the notation and final-character reading noted as uncertainty\" - image_2 shows '= 7n'; whether the trailing n is part of the answer (7n, not 7) or a stray mark decides 1 vs 0, and the handwriting cannot settle the student's intent. The response flags this uncertainty, but its award of 1 cannot be confirmed." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "acaf9eabb33dd582e640", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "bfbd2d4597e44e29ef69", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "0c1d8acbef36b6387f1f", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "eea47c8a00b3e617138e", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Justification is 2 sentences, about 60 words; within limit.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "4e3531c4496a2c05b28e", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"subtracts to get 105\" - image_2 final line reads '175 - 70 = 5°' (double-underlined); the 105 at the top of the page is the label for angle C (3 x 35), not the student's difference. The response invents a correct final answer.", "correct": "\"Mark: 4 / 4 ... All four scheme points are met, including the correct final answer\" - the written final answer is 5°, not 105, so the final A mark should be withheld; best-supported mark is 3/4 (540, 420/12 = 35, 175 and 70)." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "8b6a6e9d8877a0d5635d", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Labels the scheme's marks M1-M4, which the scheme does not use; minor.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"finally 175−70=105 (M4)\" - image_2 shows '175 - 70 = 5°' double-underlined as the final answer; 105 appears only as the angle-C label at the top. The response silently repairs the student's subtraction.", "correct": "\"All four scheme points are clearly met, so full credit is awarded\" - final answer 5° is incorrect, so the final-answer mark is not earned; best-supported mark is 3/4." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "669d3ffd826a6034cfd3", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "A1 is genuinely ambiguous here (values identifiable but final form has exponent 4); 2/2 and 1/2 are both defensible if justified.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "fail" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "Omission: \"The values A=56 and B=4 are clearly identified in the final expression\" - the final line in image_1 is 56 - (t-4)^4 (exponent clearly 4, not 2) and line 2 (40 + (t-4)^2) is not equivalent; the justification never mentions this defect, which is the material issue for the A1 decision, so the credit justification is insufficient." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "3e1a91a8db20a29625a7", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "554d512783969ce037f3", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Withholding A1 for the ^4 is a defensible strict reading; the response notes the alternative.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "bd55f0ca41a78bb6cfe3", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "031401142c6c08ca3d60", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "9e62b0fcf4d5e3e645dc", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "3b8ec1b05a245e9ac431", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "0ded5c3f8011a1a2b0e2", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"120 and 144\" and \"the boxed answer 5/12, derived from 500/144\" - image_1 shows 2023 = 140%, the working 100/140 cancelled to 5/7, and the boxed answer 5/7; 144, 500/144 and 5/12 are not written.", "correct": "\"Mark: 2 / 3 ... P1 (complete method using a starting value, 120 and 144)\" - the student wrote 140 (adding 20 twice), not 144, so the second P1 for compounding is not earned; best-supported mark is 1/3. The response also states the corrected 100/144 = 25/36, which is beyond what is needed." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "a8686e413c0f2b92a02f", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "ee4bd774f8282dfe4535", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Awarding the second mark for the ratio-division structure is a lenient reading; I judge it unauthorized by the supplied scheme, but this is a marking-judgment boundary.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "\"They did correctly subtract 120 and divide by the correct total of 12 ratio parts, which earns the method mark\" - the scheme's second mark requires a correct method to find the sum of the remaining angles (e.g. (540-120)/12 or 12x = 420); the student's 360 - 120 = 240 uses an incorrect angle sum, so the remaining-angle sum is not correctly set up and the scheme authorizes no follow-through from a wrong total. Best-supported mark is 0/4." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "e50bf60f89dea77590b4", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "756546d8a7737019b8b0", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Same lenient-vs-strict boundary as response 1.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "\"Award the method mark for subtracting 120° and dividing by the correct 12 ratio parts, despite using an incorrect total of 360°\" - the scheme's second mark is for a correct method to find the sum of the remaining angles ((540-120)/12 or 12x = 420); 360 - 120 = 240 is not that, and no follow-through from a wrong angle sum is authorized, so the credit is unjustified. Best-supported mark is 0/4." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "7c85a21defb8ed325a56", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Answer-only marking convention is a boundary; I judge 5/5 best supported, and 1/5 the least coherent option either way.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "\"The final answer 50.5 is correct, earning the final A1 ... so no method marks are awarded\" - awarding only the dependent final A1 while withholding every M mark is internally inconsistent (A marks depend on their method marks), and a correct, non-guessable 1 d.p. answer of 50.5 with no contradictory working implies the method (scheme: VA 'may be implied by subsequent working'); answer-only is not automatically limited to 1 mark. 1/5 is not a defensible mark; 5/5 is best supported." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "44b28141cf126b3900e3", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "962f78a209bbbf2daf68", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Same answer-only boundary as response 1.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "\"The final answer 50.5 is correct and earns the terminal A1. No working is present to imply the slant-edge length, so that A1 is not awarded\" - contradictory: the correct final angle 50.5 is itself subsequent working that implies the correct VA (scheme: 'may be implied by subsequent working'), and the final A1 cannot stand alone without its method marks. 1/5 is not defensible; a correct non-guessable answer with no contradictory working supports 5/5." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "5357e5717ee93f130885", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "41288332abeded8e3a5a", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "d9902310d82c4e33f756", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "3663065d9312ec87f422", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Answer-only convention boundary; same judgment as MED-09.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "\"the A1 (cao) is awarded ... so the three method marks are withheld\" - awarding the final accuracy mark alone while withholding all method marks is incoherent (the A1 follows the M marks), and a correct 3 s.f. answer of 9.77 cm (not guessable) with no contradictory working implies the method; answer-only is not automatically limited to the A mark. Best-supported mark is 4/4, not 1/4." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "d46e9b37eaa409e1c939", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Answer-only convention boundary; same judgment as MED-09.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "\"The final answer 9.77 is correct, earning the A1, but ... the three M marks are withheld\" - a lone A1 without its method marks is not a coherent award; a correct, non-guessable 9.77 with no contradictory working implies the method, so 4/4 is best supported rather than 1/4." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.296Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "146eb524ba8c3c8b02f3", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Calls the decimal point unclear; it is visible in image_2 but the hedge is harmless.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "51a9470884100c38a89c", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Describes the handwriting as 'upside-down'; image_1 is upright. Immaterial to the mark but an unsupported description.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "\"Credit is given for the complete starting-value method (100, 120, 144) ... The first P1 is withheld because no valid single-increase multiplier (1.2 or 6/5) is shown\" - the scheme's second P1 explicitly accepts the starting-value route 100, 120, 144, whose 100 -> 120 step is the 20% increase process; a complete process implies the first P1, and 25/36 with supporting working earns A1. Withholding the first P1 while awarding the second is inconsistent; best-supported mark is 3/3." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "86900098d2cfeb3c2b70", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "5774c34bccc56757acfd", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "\"No explicit multiplier (1.2 or 6/5) is written, so the first P1 is not awarded\" - the 100 -> 120 step of the scheme-accepted starting-value method is itself the process for a 20% increase, and the complete process (second P1) implies the first; with 25/36 supported by working the best-supported mark is 3/3, not 2/3." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "efc1691dd21b006f1c93", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"L⁻⁵ = 1/(3√3)⁵ = 1/(2187√3)\" and \"the clear (3√3)⁵ form\" - image_2 shows √27 = L = 3√3, then L⁻⁵ = 1/27⁵, = 1/(3^(1/3))⁵, = 1/3^(5/3); neither 1/(3√3)⁵ nor 2187√3 is written. The response invents a correct line.", "correct": "\"earning M1 for a correct first step\" - the student's written first step 1/27⁵ omits the square root (should be 1/(√27)⁵), and the following 1/(3^(1/3))⁵ is also not equivalent to L⁻⁵; no scheme-acceptable first step is shown, so best-supported mark is 0/3, not 1/3." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "fe262e33eab11b2eba7d", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"writes L⁻⁵ = 1/(3√3)⁵\" and \"the (3√3)⁵ expression is clear\" - image_2 has L = 3√3 on line 1, but the L⁻⁵ lines read 1/27⁵, 1/(3^(1/3))⁵ and 1/3^(5/3); 1/(3√3)⁵ is never written, so this is a silent repair attributed to the student.", "correct": "\"which meets the first-step M1\" - the written 1/27⁵ and 1/(3^(1/3))⁵ are not equal to 1/(√27)⁵, so the M1 for a correct first step is not earned; best-supported mark is 0/3." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "3f3aae12b56c50d35d0e", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "The inner exponent's denominator is overwritten (3 over another digit), but the numerator 1 is legible either way, so no reading yields a correct step.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"The lower-left exponent appears to read 3/2\" - in image_2 the inner exponent has a clear '1' as numerator over a (heavily overwritten) 3, i.e. 3^(1/3), which matches the student's next expression 3^(5/3); a numerator of 3 is not visible.", "correct": "\"making 1/(3^(3/2))⁵ a correct first step and earning M1\" - on the visible writing the expression is (3^(1/3))⁵ = 3^(5/3), not (√27)⁵ = 3^(15/2), and the preceding 1/27⁵ is also wrong, so M1 is not earned; best-supported mark is 0/3." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "3e5b002cd960534fdaeb", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "All three responses quote line 2 as '4x^2 - 23 = 4x + 3'; the image RHS reads '= 4 +3' with no visible x (gap). Not material to the mark since the -23 already loses the equation mark.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "2804f09c258dd6b45105", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "M1 is somewhat borderline (intent to substitute is visible), but the written composite is incomplete and the next line is inconsistent with it. RHS of line 2 also lacks an x in the image.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'though the 5 is unclear in the bracket' - image_1 line 1 shows a clean blank gap in 4(x^2- )+3; nothing unclear is written there, and this mischaracterisation is used to support awarding credit. Also says 'the written g(x)=x^2-5' when only 'x^2-5' is written.", "correct": "'One mark is awarded for the composite function' - the student's composite 4(x^2- )+3 omits the 5 and the expansion 4x^2-23 does not follow from 4(x^2-5)+3 (=4x^2-17), so correct substitution is not shown; best-supported mark is 0/5, so 1/5 is unjustified credit." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "7ce64ad797ee6e201f60", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "ea850d92bdd9afe57409", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "58758ed02a6154e2ae9a", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "53a72510f907aaffd891", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Student writes ∓ rather than ± in the formula; immaterial since both roots are given.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'The last factor under the radical ... appears to be 20, rather than -20' - image_1 formula line reads √((-4)^2 - 4×4×-20); a minus sign is visible between the final × and 20 (enlarged view confirms). Consequential misreading used to withhold a mark.", "correct": "'the substitution mark is withheld' / 'Mark: 4 / 5' - the substitution -(-4)±√((-4)^2-4×4×(-20))/(2×4) is correct for 4x^2-4x-20=0, so the scheme supports 5/5; withholding M4 is unsupported." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "ec6c74ad3c6044908c54", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "b629be547361ddbd607c", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Mark 4/4 and the M1dep award are still correct; the misreading only distorts the stated basis for M1dep.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'The factorised lines appear to retain an extra r' - image_2 factorised lines read 40 = r(2 + 2π/3) and 40 = r((6+2π)/3); the π glyph has no trailing r (compare 2πr in the top lines), so no extra r is written. This is an invented error in the student's work, though the mark is unaffected." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "98379f2ba9ac9e9c3aac", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "c52632d69df37df44834", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Justification likely exceeds 3 sentences (4 sentences).", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'M1 for the slant-edge method 15² + (5√2)²' and 'the slip 225 + 50 = 175' - image_2 line 2 reads 15² − (5√2)² = 175 (a clear minus sign, consistent with 225 − 50 = 175); the response silently repairs the subtraction into an addition.", "correct": "'Mark: 3 / 5' - the slant-edge M1 is unearned because the student subtracted (5√2)² from 15² (VA² should be 225 + 50 = 275), and the cosine-rule M1 is doubtful because the LHS is written 10√2 rather than (10√2)² = 200. Only the AC M1 (5√2 half-diagonal / 10√2 base) is supported, so the best-supported mark is 1/5." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "032f10169103013a7525", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'the correct method setting up VA² = 15² + (5√2)²' and '225 + 50 was wrongly evaluated as 175' - image_2 shows 15² − (5√2)² = 175 with a minus sign; the student subtracted, and the arithmetic 225 − 50 = 175 is actually correct. Silent repair of the student's sign.", "correct": "'Mark: 2 / 5' - awarding the VA² method M1 is unjustified: subtracting the half-diagonal squared from the height squared is not the Pythagoras method VM² + AM². Only the AC M1 is supported, giving 1/5. Also the claim that 225 + 50 was 'wrongly evaluated as 175' misdiagnoses the error (it is a wrong operation, not an arithmetic slip)." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "3d42654504a0649b4550", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "323f23840c26b65c3121", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Answer-only case; full marks follows the standard GCSE convention (correct answer, no contradictory working, question does not demand working) and the guide's 'answer-only is not automatically zero'.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "35cfe9703281ad178717", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Some ambiguity about answer-only credit, but 1/5 (A1 without its method) is the least coherent option.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'all three M1s and the slant-edge A1 are withheld' / 'Mark: 1 / 5' - image_2 shows the correct answer 50.5° alone; the question does not require working and nothing in the scheme forbids implied credit, so under GCSE convention the correct answer implies the method marks and earns 5/5. Awarding only the final A1 is not the best-supported mark." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "ecac601f45bf9209653a", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'the final A1 is dependent on that Cosine Rule M1' - the supplied scheme does not mark the final A1 as dependent (only the A1 for VA says 'may be implied'); and 'no credit is awarded despite the correct numerical value' contradicts the GCSE convention that a correct answer with no working earns full marks when working is not demanded. Best-supported mark is 5/5, not 0/5." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "8503a91f561535ce1918", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Left column of image_1 more plausibly reads 1.00 − 0.55 = 0.45 with borrowing marks (crossed 1 -> 0, 0 -> 9, 10), i.e. 1 − (0.2+0.35); the response's '0.80 − 0.35' reading is hedged as uncertain and does not affect the 0/2 decision.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "a6ad4c132698598709bd", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'The left column shows 0.80 × 0.95' and 'the 0.8 × 0.95 setup is legible' - image_1 left column has a minus sign before the second row and borrowing marks (0, 9, 1 above a crossed 1.00), giving 1.00 − 0.55 = 0.45, consistent with the right column 0.2 + 0.35 = 0.55. No × 0.95 product is written; the response invents the scheme's method with unsupported certainty.", "correct": "'the method mark is awarded' / 'Mark: 1 / 2' - the student's method is 1 − (0.2 + 0.35), not (1 − 0.2) × (1 − 0.05), so the M1 is unjustified; best-supported mark is 0/2. (Also 0.8 × 0.95 = 0.76, which could not yield 0.45.)" }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "29323ee5fb6062466761", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "98a73e5b5bd6282d705d", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "'They treat AC as 10 (half 5)' is a slight over-interpretation: the student uses the half-side 5 (from the 10 cm side) and never labels anything AC; does not affect the 0/5 decision.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "56b22098e964ff6e2290", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'Award M1 on follow-through for √(15²+5²)=√250, treating 5 as their half-diagonal, and M1 for doubling tan⁻¹(5/15)' - image_2 shows no diagonal calculation at all; 5 is half the side, not 'their' half of a computed AC, so the scheme's follow-through ('their √200 / 2') does not apply, and doubling tan⁻¹(5/15) finds the angle between opposite face slant heights, not angle AVC. Best-supported mark is 0/5, so 2/5 is unjustified credit." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "bf006ffcebafe7f2c682", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "56b7df425fbabe69b1ea", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Image_1 shows '= 2 5' and '2 5 × 1m = 2 5 m' with consistent gaps but no visible decimal point (pixel check: no stray marks). The intended 2.5 is likely but not written; the response correctly flags this. Under a decimal-intent reading a higher mark (up to 3/3) would be defensible, so the mark is genuinely ambiguous.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "d953be679aa308975b4c", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'The answer 2.5 m is given' and '25 kg cement … = 2.5' - image_1 shows '2 5' / '2 5 m' with a gap but no decimal point; the response silently supplies the decimal point and does not flag this uncertainty, on which the A1 depends.", "correct": "'so A1 is awarded' while 'neither P1 is credited' - the response itself treats 25 kg cement with 75 kg sand (2.5 × 30) as supporting calculation; that scaling is a process for the cement-limited length (implied 25 ÷ 10), so awarding the accuracy mark 'with supporting calculations' while denying the first process mark is internally inconsistent. On the decimal-intent reading at least P1 + A1 is supported; on the literal reading A1 cannot be awarded. 1/3 as A1-only is not defensible either way." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "addb36ae07dc8332612d", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Genuinely ambiguous case: an examiner reading the gaps as decimals might award 3/3 for correct answer with supporting calculation, but the response's stated basis (comparison with 100 kg) is not in the work.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'The student shows ... that the 75 kg sand required is within the 100 kg available' - image_1 never mentions 100 kg or any comparison; only '25kg cement + 75kg sand = 2 5' and '2 5 × 1m = 2 5 m' are written. Also asserts '2.5 m' though no decimal point is visible (silent repair, not flagged).", "correct": "'a complete process using both ingredients (P1, P1)' / 'Mark: 3 / 3' - the second P1 requires finding both possible lengths (e.g. 100 ÷ 30 = 3.33) or an equivalent comparison with the sand available; no such process is written, so the justification for full marks rests on invented work. The A1 also depends on the unflagged 2.5 reading." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "df893b046ed539b02b25", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Borderline: a strict reading of 'setting up a correct method' could justify withholding the second mark, but 2/4 is the better-supported award.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'M2 is withheld ... the equation is written 240=12x rather than 12x=420, so the division step is incorrect' / 'Mark: 1 / 4' - image_2 shows both 540 − 120 = 420 and 2+2+3+5 = 12 correctly, so the method of dividing the remaining 420 by 12 parts is set up; 240 is a digit-transposition copying slip of their own 420, which under usual GCSE practice costs the accuracy marks (already lost), not the method mark. Best-supported mark is 2/4." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "affd7e7bd97ad1c718df", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "8d16fde24969fb9bec5e", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "5b557ce98a8f244c6239", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'No working or method is shown, so the method mark ... cannot be given' / 'Mark: 1 / 2' - image_1 shows the correct answer 0.76 alone; the question does not demand working, so under GCSE convention a correct answer implies the method mark (answer-only is not automatically limited to the A mark). Best-supported mark is 2/2; awarding the answer mark while denying its method is not defensible." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "4d04f0e05ed7b5e66535", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "a5332f3a2e75ddc17340", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'the method mark is withheld' / 'Mark: 1 / 2' - the correct answer 0.76 with no contradictory working implies the 0.8 × 0.95 method under GCSE convention when working is not required; best-supported mark is 2/2." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "5ee7953b4cfed1f9492d", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Mark 3/3 itself is the best-supported award (correct answer with working; A1 implies the rationalising M1).", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'the intermediate line (3²×(√3)²)⁵ is not equivalent to (3√3)⁵ as written' - image_2's middle line reads roughly (3^? × (3^{·?} )^5 with unclear exponents and no √ symbol; the response asserts a specific reading and an error with unsupported certainty. It also reports the denominator as 1/(2187√3) without noting that the written radicand resembles 2 (silent repair)." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.297Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "7f277228dc6f5395b56f", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "af2d9742d13d4596ce7d", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Some ambiguity: a strict reading of 'complete process' could withhold M2, but then A1 would also be questionable.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'M2 is withheld as the rationalisation process (multiplying by √3/√3) is not shown' while 'A1 for the correct final answer √3/6561' - image_2 shows 1/(2187√[3]) = √3/6561, a correct rationalised result from their denominator; the correct answer with this working implies the rationalising method, and awarding the A1 while withholding the method mark it depends on is inconsistent with GCSE M/A dependency. Best-supported mark is 3/3." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "70bbc52b64769f419b2d", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "e2a308eb7784eda8b331", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "4f7dd341918c3fc6feed", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "51587631b0cd61bb1d8b", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Location (selecting C as first, contradicting 4/11<5/11) is correct. Category boundary between 5 and 7 is genuinely ambiguous, but 6 is not supported.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "Category '6. Logical Reasoning Error' is not defensible for the error it locates. The image shows correct comparisons (4/11<5/11, 3/13<4/13, 65/143 and 44/143) and the third blank A is correct, so the wrong first blank C is a slip in filling in the letter (Transcription/Attention & Detail, cf. expert explanation), not a faulty chain of inference; the response itself says 'its cause cannot be localized further', which does not support a reasoning-error category." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "e968694630cbc39e8daa", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines before Category field.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'The earliest error is the choice of the cross-comparison ... 65/143 vs 44/143 ... a valid but ineffective step' classified as '4. Procedural Error': a valid, correctly executed comparison (5/11 vs 4/13) is not a mathematical error; the category is assigned to a non-error rather than to the wrong letter C in the answer.", "right_place": "'that jump is therefore treated as an unsupported downstream consequence, not the originating error': the only supported error is the answer 'C; A' (C written as first although the work shows 4/11<5/11 and the third answer A is right). The response instead targets an invented error (an incomplete but valid bridging comparison)." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "fe24c57968c44625fbaa", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Format: Category/Explanation block is output twice (near-duplicate), violating 'Return two fields'. Leading blank lines.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'This reflects a misconception about the fraction-comparison strategy' / '3. Conceptual Knowledge Error': comparing 5/11 with 4/13 via 65/143 vs 44/143 is valid; nothing shows a misconception, and the claim that this 'is why the student then placed 5/11 (C) first' is unsupported (the student got the third blank A correct, consistent with a slip in writing C). Category and causal explanation are not defensible.", "right_place": "'The earliest unsupported step is the bridging comparison the student actually performed': this is not an invalid step; the identifiable error is writing C for the first blank (expert: correct relationships, wrote C by mistake). Wrong target / invented error." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "ef6368fd87273d75ff7d", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines before Category field.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "496e5b7cbba89d246b0b", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "ccf2bbbe41a982d658f0", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines before Category field.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "d506be0080c6ed94626e", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Location (final division of -6x=-3 giving -1/2) matches the image and expert. The specific mechanism 'positive 3 over -6' is only partly legible in the messy left-hand third line; not material to the diagnosis.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "375fb451fd8a1e76bb3b", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines. Line 2 sign is somewhat cramped, but the visible '-6x = -3' resolves it.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'the student writes \"4x + 3x - 6x - 7x = 63 + 60\"' and 'the student even strikes through the 63': line 2 of image_1 shows three dash strokes before 63 (= followed by minus, i.e. '= -63 + 60'), and no strikethrough of 63 is visible; the student's next line on the right clearly reads '-6x = -3', contradicting 'they obtained -6x = 3'.", "correct": "'Because the student's misapplied transposition produced +3 instead of -3': 63 + 60 = 123, not 3, so the claimed chain from +63 to -6x = 3 is arithmetically invalid.", "right_place": "Misses the earliest supported error: the image shows correct transposition and -6x = -3, so the error is in the final division (-3)/(-6) given as -1/2 (expert explanation). The response targets an invented transposition error." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "4d1983b6a7461f0dc219", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Some ambiguity in line-2 strokes, but the later -6x=-3 line supports the minus being present.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'the student writes 4x+3x-6x-7x=63+60, dropping the minus sign from -63': image_1 line 2 shows '= -63 + 60' (three dash strokes: equals plus minus), and the subsequent '-6x = -3' is consistent only with -63+60; the dropped sign is a misreading.", "right_place": "'This is the earliest visible error': the transposition line is correct and leads to -6x = -3; the actual (and expert) error is solving -6x = -3 as x = -1/2. The response misses that error and targets an invented one." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "8a5010ebe2c4b8093bd9", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines. Correctly flags the ambiguous operator/denominator in the scratch fragment.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "unverifiable", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'indicating a gap in the knowledge that an equivalent fraction must be expressed in simplest form' / '3. Conceptual Knowledge Error': the location (25/45 and 21/24 left unreduced) is correct, but the only evidence is the omitted reduction; the work cannot distinguish a knowledge gap (3) from an omitted step (4) or oversight (7), so the category rests on an inferred learner belief and the boundary is not decidable from the image." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "035cccea1ada183a9465", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'Category: 1. Calculation Error' attached to 'The scratchwork appears to state 8/28=13/24': the response itself says the line is ambiguous and does not establish an error, so the category is not assigned to a supported error; the actual supported error (unreduced 25/45, 21/24) is given no category.", "right_place": "'without a simplest-form requirement, those answers are mathematically correct': the reference requires simplest form (25/45 = 5/9, 21/24 = 7/8); the supported error is leaving both answers unsimplified (expert explanation). The response targets an ambiguous scratch fragment (strokes in image_1 between 8/2? and 13/24 could be a sloppy +; 21/24 shows the addition was done correctly) instead." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "ca88938353ed376f94aa", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines. Category 7 would be defensible for the unreduced answers too, but here it is attached to the fragment.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "'The earliest concrete, supported mismatch ... is therefore the mis-written denominator/operator in \"8/28 = 13/24\"': the response itself concedes the denominator 'may be a mis-formed 24' and the fragment 'does not clearly connect' to the answers; the final 21/24 shows 8/24 + 13/24 was added correctly, so this inconsequential, ambiguous fragment is not a supported mathematical error. The supported error, leaving 25/45 and 21/24 unreduced, is mentioned only as a note and is not the diagnosed/classified error." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "714b92e106ce2c91df05", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines. Infers a learner belief ('flawed understanding...') without written evidence.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'the bracket under 9＋3 indicates the partial sum 12), which evaluates to 24 m': image_1 shows '11' written under the bracket and '= 22' after '×2'; the response silently repairs the student's 11 and 22 to 12 and 24.", "correct": "'That step is valid, so the originating error is not in the perimeter computation' and 'Category: 3. Conceptual Knowledge Error' (using 9 as the side): the visible step 9+3 = 11 is an arithmetic error (should be 12), a Calculation error; the conceptual diagnosis rests on an unwritten step inferred from 81.", "right_place": "Misses the earliest supported error, 9 + 3 written as 11 (then 11×2 = 22), identified in the expert explanation; instead diagnoses an unwritten later step inferred from the final answer." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "e46eb3ca9b16295aba48", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "5bbebcbee767646d1a39", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'The only visible step in the scratchwork, \"(9 + 3) × 2 = 24\", is a correct computation': image_1 shows 11 under the bracketed 9+3 and the result written as 22, not 24; the response repairs the student's work.", "correct": "'the written arithmetic therefore contains no mistake' and 'Category: 4. Procedural Error': the visible 9 + 3 = 11 (giving 22) is an arithmetic error, so the no-mistake assessment and the procedural category are not defensible.", "right_place": "Misses the earliest supported error (9+3 = 11 in the perimeter step, per expert explanation) and instead claims the error cannot be localized and attributes it to an incomplete procedure." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "d54536086286189ec02c", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines. Correctly flags that the visible >= inequality gives x <= 43, conflicting with the written maximum 40.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "fdb5772a8c7340d52e64", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "unverifiable", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'This is a conceptual modeling error' / '3. Conceptual Knowledge Error': location and mathematics (5x+38<6x only bounds the last share below 6; should be 5x+38<6(x-1)+5) are correct, but the error is a mistranslation of the verbal condition 'less than 5 boxes', which fits Problem Comprehension (2; expert: 'misinterpreted the problem'); whether 3 is defensible is a genuine category-boundary question the scratchwork cannot settle." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "489f546f138ba8f2c237", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "unverifiable", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'Category: 6. Logical Reasoning Error': the arithmetic (233 - 6*38 = 5) is correct, but the category boundary between treating the insufficient condition 5x+38<6x as logical reasoning versus mistranslating 'less than 5 boxes' (Problem Comprehension, expert) is not decidable from the work.", "right_place": "'No invalid algebraic step is visible, so an earlier error cannot be reliably localized in the scratchwork': the earliest error is identifiable in image_1 line 2, '5x+38 < 6x', which mis-models 'the last person gets less than 5 boxes' (should be 5x+38 < 6(x-1)+5). The response declines to locate it and diagnoses only the resulting minimum 39." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "634f8a74f44a65024ca1", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "34f9d5c5fa8497c98855", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines. The aside about an 'inconsistent base of 24/2.4 rather than 240' overstates a harmless scaling shortcut (288-192 = 96 matches the answer) but is not the diagnosed error.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "620321fd144c3a431b70", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines. Minor: '2.4 × 1.2' is not visible (left column is 24 × 1.2 with partial products 48, 24, 288/28.8); not material.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "dc080ef86b6c49b964e3", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines. Problem text says 'water pipe' then 'wooden strip' (translation inconsistency); not material.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "eaf6716c7e76cc9ea682", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "ab807e7acb5f2cd5ad29", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "c7b6b44b7982dc87ccee", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "unverifiable", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'Category: 2. Problem Comprehension Error' while stating 'The work does not show how 24 was obtained': location (24 used as base sum in 24 × 4) and the correct value 28 − 5 − 5 = 18 are right, but with the derivation of 24 unwritten in image_1 the work cannot decide between Problem Comprehension and Conceptual Knowledge (expert: not understanding perimeter = bases + 2 × leg)." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "241f4b4c98d1f2e26d77", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines. The 24 = 28 − 4 mechanism is speculative but explicitly flagged as inferred; category matches expert explanation.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "1515b9b403432def575c", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading and trailing blank lines.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "unverifiable", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'The originating error is therefore the failure to carry out the required preliminary step' / '4. Procedural Error': the location (24 instead of 18 as the base sum) is correct, but the student evidently did obtain 24 by some unwritten step; whether this is a procedural omission or a conceptual misunderstanding of the perimeter (expert) cannot be decided from image_1, so the category is a genuine boundary case." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "8b84357dc86dcef66b0c", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines. Paraphrases the written '2x-60+x=180' as 2(x-30)+x=180 (meaning-preserving). Category 4 vs 3/7 is a soft boundary; 4 is defensible for the omitted back-substitution.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "9fbefbb140c106b765d2", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Category 7 vs 4/3 is a soft boundary; 7 is defensible.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "2d4363e1c2faffb48be6", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines. Presents '2(x-30)+x=180 → 3x-60=180' as the student's chain, whereas the image shows '2x-60+x=180, 3x=240, x=80'; meaning-preserving, not material.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "e9d9c8b45fa3eddf7d4d", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines. Expert explanation also mentions omitting the other case, which conflicts with the student answer containing 3√3/10.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'to obtain 50m² = 27, m² = 27/50, m = 3√150/50': image_1's last line reads 'm² = 27/50 = ±3√150/50'; no 'm =' is written, so the response silently repairs the student's invalid chained equality (and drops the ±).", "correct": "'the unsimplified radical is not the source of the error; the originating flaw is the missing second case' / '6. Logical Reasoning Error': the student's answer already contains the correct second-case value 3√3/10, so a missing case is not supported as the cause of the wrong answer; the supported defects are the invalid chain m² = 27/50 = ±3√150/50 and the unreduced radical 3√150/50 (= 3√6/10), which the response wrongly dismisses.", "right_place": "Targets an unshown case (an evidence gap in the scratchwork) rather than the visible error in the final line of image_1 (m² equated to ±3√150/50 and the radical left unreduced; expert: 'did not correctly simplify the value inside the square root')." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "da512cb376b8f6669e26", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Identifies the visible earliest error (m² = 27/50 = ±3√150/50). Flags the reference conflict (3√150/50 = 3√6/10) but does not mention that the unreduced radical is the likely reason the answer was marked wrong (expert); defensible as a flagged conflict.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "645a9f85e6a3322af3ef", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading and trailing blank lines. Unreduced radical (√150 = 5√6) diagnosis matches expert; category 1 defensible.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'in the final line, where the student writes m=±3√150/50': image_1 shows 'm² = 27/50 = ±3√150/50'; there is no 'm =' — the response invents/repairs the writing, hiding the student's invalid equation of m² with its root (it then asserts 'the displayed algebra contains no invalid transformation')." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "57b8089051ec0646f9f7", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "990e5226e02137bcf522", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines. Category 4 vs 7 is a soft boundary; 4 is defensible.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "b5693ebc2eb773ce255c", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines. Refers to 'scratchwork lines' though the image just shows the two answers.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "unverifiable", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'Category: 3. Conceptual Knowledge Error' for writing '10.58' without '%': location and explanation are correct, but image_1 shows only the digits with the sign omitted; it cannot establish a lack of knowledge of percentage notation versus an omission/oversight (Attention & Detail, as in the expert 'omitted the percent sign'), so the category boundary is undecidable." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "6d3bc219236acda19a0d", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines. The minus in the scratch radicand is small but visible on zoom; 'clearly present' slightly overstated.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "7c762708b400c8a8bedb", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines. Category 7 vs 5 is a soft boundary for a dropped symbol.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'In the scratchwork the student writes the quadratic formula as (−b ± √(b² 4ac))/2a ... with the subtraction sign omitted' and 'the left part of the top line, \"b² 4ac\", also lacks the operator': on image_1 a short minus stroke is visible after b² both in the radicand and in the top-left 'b² - 4ac'; the response misreads the scratchwork as missing the sign.", "right_place": "'The first genuinely erroneous mathematical expression is that radicand ... propagates into the final x₂': the scratchwork formula is correct; the supported error is only in the submitted x₂, where '√(b^24ac)' drops the minus (expert: careless transcription). The response invents an earlier scratchwork error." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "017b506707cd960491d9", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "'changes the discriminant from a difference to a product' is a fair reading of the juxtaposed b^24ac.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "772caffb5927d92d8ea0", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Calls the decimal point after the first 1 in image_1 'faint/ambiguous'; it is actually as visible as the dots in 1.5 and 6.3, but the response flags the image/typed-answer conflict rather than misattributing writing, so not consequential.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "06b69bd82e937db4ba41", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Category 5 is still defensible since the error is copying -1.6 as -16 into the final answer; the response's account of copying 'from the problem statement' rather than from the draft follows from the misreading.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'the student's first term is written as -16 — the decimal point is not placed between the 1 and the 6 (the only visible mark is a low dot under the 6...)': in image_1 the dot sits at the baseline between the 1 and the 6, exactly like the dots in 1.5 and 6.3, so the scratchwork reads -1.6. The -16 occurs only in the typed final answer (copied from the draft), so the response misreads the image to match the typed answer." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "84c593d955c2835e44f0", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "unverifiable", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'the final term appears as +(3.1), with no negative sign inside the parentheses': in image_1 the parenthesis/first stroke of the last term is an overlapping hooked mark before the 3, so whether an inner minus is present cannot be reliably decided; the response states the absence with certainty and does not note that the typed student answer has +(-3.1).", "right_place": "'The image also shows -1.6, conflicting with the supplied typed student answer -16': the response notes the -1.6 -> -16 discrepancy but does not treat it as the error, even though it is the only mismatch between the student answer -16+1.5+6.3+(-3.1) and the correct answer. It instead diagnoses an ambiguous draft sign that is correct in the final answer, so it misses the supported originating error (copying -1.6 as -16)." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "7c2c98a9007f6edb8904", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Category boundary: the erroneous step (opposite of 4-5√3 given as 4+5√3) is unwritten, so Calculation (sign slip) vs Conceptual (expert's choice) cannot be settled from the work; both judged defensible.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "b484cb6b941f232ea778", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Category boundary Calculation vs Conceptual is genuinely open because the final step is unwritten; Conceptual matches the expert. 'a misunderstanding of the opposite-number operation' leans toward inferring a belief from one answer, but it is not framed as persistent.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "c138ea32d4601e029de7", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Category boundary Calculation vs Conceptual is genuinely open (unwritten final step); response appropriately states the localization limit.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "34434a2a7711d6792064", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Sign slip -6(x+2) -> -6x+12: Procedural/Calculation/Attention boundary is genuinely open; expert gives no category. Procedural judged defensible.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "9eb8be9a7a71bdc3abf4", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Student wrote 30×(x-1)/2 etc. with 15/6/10 annotations rather than 15(x-1)-6(x+2) literally; response's rendering is a meaning-preserving paraphrase. Category boundary for the sign slip is open; Calculation defensible.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "fe87dfbf4017c4ad3d49", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Category boundary for the sign slip is open; Attention & Detail defensible.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "33dcc0d4a18d17d9b951", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Category field '7. Attention & Detail Error' is given while the explanation says no error in this category can be substantiated, which is internally inconsistent. Uncertain: whether an unreduced but equivalent bound counts as an error is a convention question.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "'there is no supported earliest mathematical error to locate': the response correctly notes 5/70 = 1/14, but it omits the one supported deviation in image_1 and the student answer, namely that the circled bound x > 5/70 (from 5/10 × 1/7) was never reduced to lowest terms. The expert and the other valid readings target exactly this unreduced fraction, so the response misses the identifiable error instead of flagging equivalence while still naming it." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "aecb71b2bf800905fcce", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Calculation vs Attention & Detail boundary for an omitted fraction reduction is open; both defensible.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "17aa8b13521b4a36474c", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Calculation vs Attention & Detail boundary for an omitted fraction reduction is open; both defensible.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "3ad55aeb3477f0bcc144", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Category boundary for the omitted km->m conversion (Procedural / Attention & Detail / Problem Comprehension) is genuinely open; Procedural defensible. The closing 'conflict' note (left 4896 already equals the meter value) is slightly confusing, since image_1 shows 4.896 with a decimal dot after the 4, but the response hedges it.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "c1c60d201eb0cc89fe26", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Category boundary open; Attention & Detail matches the expert's 'did not notice' framing.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "b2f01760a6b755167c96", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Category boundary open; Problem Comprehension defensible for not registering the required unit.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "9316348b5f60bc92775e", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Q2 left as pass: given its (mis)reading the internal mathematics is valid, and Transcription is a defensible category for a sign changed while copying a term between lines; the defect is the reading and the location.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'the student writes the expression as \"2x^4 - 2x^2 - 1 + 13x^4\"': in image_1 the sign before 2x^2 in the first line is a plus (a horizontal stroke crossed by a slanted vertical, formed like the '+' before 13x^4), so line 1 reads 2x^4 + 2x^2 - 1 + 13x^4. The response invents a minus sign in line 1.", "right_place": "'The earliest supported error is in the first line of the scratchwork... copied it with a minus sign': line 1 is a correct removal of the parentheses. The earliest supported error is the change from +2x^2 (line 1) to -2x^2 in line 2 (15x^4 - 2x^2 - 1). Because of the misreading, the response targets a step that is not erroneous and treats line 2 as a correct consequence." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "721f1a4e287415b1ac89", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Calculation / Attention & Detail / Transcription boundary for an unmotivated sign flip on a carried-over term is open; Calculation defensible.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "119deaf549c52655fc90", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Category boundary open; Attention & Detail defensible.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.298Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "493ef436e749126bc70d", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.299Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Denominator in line 2 reads 15 or 75 (ambiguous hooked 1/7); final '=8'-like mark is overwritten/ambiguous.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'The visible work first converts the division correctly into multiplication by the reciprocal' and 'an extra s²t² factor is introduced' in the next step: image_1 line 1 already shows an s²t prefactor outside the radical, √(18/5 t × 2/5 t). The response silently omits that written prefactor and reports line 1 as clean.", "correct": "'converts the division correctly into multiplication by the reciprocal': in line 1 the divisor √(5/2 s²t) is replaced by ×(2/5)t, which is not its reciprocal (it should be 2/(5s²t)), and the s²t outside the radical is unjustified (√(s²t³) gives st√t). Line 1 is therefore not a correct transformation, although its RHS √(36/25 t²) happens to equal the correct radicand.", "right_place": "'The earliest supported error occurs in the next visible step, where the student rewrites this as s²t²·√(36/75)': the earliest supported error is the first line (s²t extracted outside and the divisor mishandled). The response diagnoses a later step and misses the originating error." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.299Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "6af0fd737adcb076c67e", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.299Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Locates the line-1 s²t prefactor as the earliest error. Does not also mention the ×(2/5)t divisor handling in the same step, which is not required. Procedural vs Conceptual (expert) boundary is open.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.299Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "35c273b10a4d0837009d", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.299Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Earliest error correctly placed in line 1. Downstream description is misread: it quotes 's t²√(36/25) = 6', but image_1 line 2 shows s²t²√(36/15 or 75) = 8 (overwritten). Not consequential to the diagnosed earliest error. Its rendering 's²t·√(18/5·t) × (2/5)·t' also places ×(2/5)t outside the radical, whereas the overline spans it.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.299Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "cec6c8e9530374f7293e", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.299Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'This omitted \"−2\" is the originating error; the later use of 104 ... is a downstream consequence': 47+55=102 is a valid partial step toward 47+55−2, and simply omitting −2 would leave 102, not 104. The 104 used in image_1 (102+2) cannot be a consequence of omission, so the causal explanation and the 'incomplete procedure' classification rest on a false account.", "right_place": "Locates the error at 'the first visible step — the left-hand sum \"47 + 55 = 102\"', which is correct intermediate work. The supported earliest error is the switch from 102 to 104 (the 2 added instead of subtracted) before the vertical multiplication 104×74; the response treats that as a downstream symptom." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.299Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "4567730c3df79820c61c", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.299Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Calculation vs Attention & Detail boundary for +2 instead of −2 is open; Calculation is defensible and matches the expert's 'calculated −2 as +2'.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.299Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "34422dfdc7a7c120c7be", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.299Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Calls the left sum 'omitting the required −2', which is slightly imprecise (102 is a valid partial step), but it correctly identifies 104 = 47+55+2 as the originating slip and notes that the moment the 2 was added is unwritten. Category boundary open.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.299Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "0afe3a0f16c44c87cef6", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.299Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Quotient digit in image_1 is overwritten but reads as 6. Logical Reasoning matches the expert; the Logical / Conceptual / Problem Comprehension boundary for remainder interpretation is open.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.299Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "54500dafbc902c1f0a7b", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Conceptual is defensible given the open category boundary. 'reflects a misunderstanding of what the remainder means' is a mild belief inference.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "f48a75cdbe03a0b3ffa2", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Problem Comprehension is defensible given the open category boundary. 'read the task as \"how many blankets can be fully filled\"' is a mild, unsupported belief inference, but not framed as persistent.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "89f12db7305980680c0d", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "unverifiable", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'the product beneath 220 appears to be written as 168': in image_1 the middle digit of the product is a loosely formed loop-and-stem (it could be 6 or 9). The remainder written beneath it (…20, consistent with 22 and a brought-down 0) fits 220 − 198 = 22, not 220 − 168 = 52, so the 168 reading is not supported and cannot be confirmed.", "right_place": "Diagnoses only 'This multiplication error' in the long division and gives no account of the student answer 1.7. The quotient digits 1.6 are correct, and the supported error is rounding to one decimal place (1.66… -> 1.7) instead of the required two decimal places (1.67). The response misses this error that produced the wrong answer, and even a 168 product would not explain 1.7." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "7e95de29a00a91919c60", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Category boundary Attention & Detail vs Conceptual (expert: misunderstanding of 'two decimal places') is open; both defensible.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "52d7825482c4843bfeab", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Calls the lower scratchwork 'too faint'; it is cramped and overlapping rather than faint, which is not consequential. Category boundary Attention & Detail vs Conceptual is open.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "8c0f9e2c02e5839f1f52", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Does identify 'leaving the coefficient (6m+7) non-zero', which is the substantive defect. Chronology of the top-right line relative to the three-line derivation is not established by its position.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'This is an invalid transformation ... The right side of the rearranged equation is 2m+9n, not 0': setting 2m+9n = 0, which gives (6m+7)x = 0, is one of the two conditions required for infinitely many solutions, so it is not itself invalid. What is missing is the companion condition 6m+7 = 0. Also, 'the recorded answer m = 0, n = 0 is not obtainable from the visible work' is false: m = n = 0 satisfies the condition 2m+9n = 0 that the top-right line encodes, which is a direct route to the submitted answer (with 6m+7 = 7 ≠ 0 left unchecked)." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "67db2efe41982fff16ce", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Chronology of the top-right line is not established by its position; the response assumes it was written after the derivation.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'The equation (6m+7)x = 0 is not a valid consequence of the original equation and does not encode the 2m+9n = 0 requirement': (6m+7)x = 0 is exactly what (6m+7)x = 2m+9n becomes when the required condition 2m+9n = 0 is imposed, so it does encode that requirement and follows validly under it. The condition actually missing is 6m+7 = 0 (m = n = 0 gives 7x = 0, a unique solution). The explanation names the wrong missing condition." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "ffa6cf4be194ec030b18", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Appropriately notes the unwritten derivation of m = n = 0 and explains the mismatch (6m+7 = 7 gives 7x = 0, a unique solution). It does not link m = n = 0 to the top-right line (2m+9n = 0 satisfied), but that is not required. Expert's account (coefficient condition only) differs from the visible line, which reflects the constant-term condition only.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "c724e12ab78cab9049b6", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Expert explanation ('may not have seen ... 2 tons') also conflicts with the visible 2)3 division. Location (the final step producing 3) is acceptable.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'The visible work (add, convert to tons, stop)' and 'with no division by the truck's 2-ton capacity': image_1 top right shows a legible long division 2)3 with quotient 1. The response calls this note 'too unclear to read reliably' but then asserts with certainty that no division was performed, which omits visible writing.", "correct": "'with no division by the truck's 2-ton capacity' and 'the student failed to comprehend that the question asks for a trip count constrained by the 2-ton load': image_1 (top right) shows the long division 2)3 with quotient 1. The student did divide the 3 tons by the 2-ton capacity, so the claimed mechanism (no division, total tons taken as trips) is contradicted, and the Problem Comprehension rationale built on it is unsupported." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "1921c6e93aa721a382a0", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Location (the final step producing 3, after correct addition and conversion) is acceptable, so Q3 pass.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'the student never uses the truck's given capacity of 2 tons and performs no division of the total by that capacity': image_1 top right shows the long division 2)3 with quotient 1 written above. The response omits visible writing and asserts its absence with certainty.", "correct": "'This is a missing/incorrect step in the required procedure (total ÷ capacity...)': the division 3 ÷ 2 = 1 is present, so the error is not a skipped division step. It lies in going from the quotient 1 (remainder 1) to the answer 3 rather than 1+1 = 2. The Procedural rationale rests on a false account of the work." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "d3ca1bc629932b13c628", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Correctly reads the started division 3 ÷ 2 with quotient 1 and states the localization limit for how 3 was reached. Logical Reasoning is defensible.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "f39afd41cdbfb2fd7f3b", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Goes one step past the reference (substitution) by also clearing denominators to 2a^2-17a+8=0; judged as part of one 'convert to quadratic' key step, not a full solution.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "459ef8c2386cd4b299ac", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Combines substitution with clearing denominators (2a^2-17a+8=0); explicitly stops before solving the quadratic. Judged within scope.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "5c9e23e484c6033b5b09", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "d42b10e9a958495f26fe", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Taking logs is a valid alternative to the reference (quotient rule rewrite to 4^x/16=60), so Q3 passes, though the student's written quotient-rule cue is dismissed because of the misreading.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"The small base-9 expression on the right, 9^{m-5}/(9^3/9^3), is a separate same-base scratch note and is not part of this equation\": image_1 right side reads a^{m-n} = a^m/a^n (the quotient rule, letter a), not powers of 9; the misreading leads the response to dismiss the written rule as unrelated." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "e4ddafc8ccb48843a9b5", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Log approach is a valid alternative; execution also divides by log 4 to x-2=log_4 60, a small extension still short of solving for x.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"a vertical stack of powers of 9 (9^{m-5}, 9^3, 9^3 ...)\" and \"That stack uses base 9\": image_1 shows a^{m-n} over a^m/a^n, i.e. the quotient rule with base a; the response invents base-9 expressions and treats the note as unrelated." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "6aec3dc8740edd7a945f", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "ce14f075001e360653ab", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Mathematics checked: (sqrt5-1)^3 = 8sqrt5-16 = 8(sqrt5-2), so the final value is correct. Calling cubing 'circular' dismisses the reference step but the denesting method is a valid alternative.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "fail" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "Excess solution disclosure: Execution solves the whole problem, deriving A=5/4, B=1/4 and \"x = cube-root(sqrt5-2) = (sqrt5-1)/2\". The single next step after 'let x = cube-root(sqrt5-2)' is cubing to x^3 = sqrt5-2; the response skips this and gives the final simplified answer." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "eab2e8b658fd70f0bab3", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "0b8d94bb6077de5272fe", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "f651e5e7e477286ad3be", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "56c2eb7b17cba3a611be", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "9a75bb93e42a8df19edc", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "The probability 9/19 itself is correct; the misread option list adds a confusing instruction to re-check the choices.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"as they appear - 0/19, 9/20, 10/19, 10/20, 11/20 - none equals 9/19\": image_1 option A is printed 9/19; the response misreads it as 0/19 and wrongly tells the student no option matches and to re-check the denominators." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "ba379a80e546ea2b0aaf", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Blue note in image_1 reads D = 60 theta (distance-angle relation); response transcribes it as 'D = 60 deg' with a stray degree sign but interprets it as the 60 nmi/degree constant and flags the ambiguity, so Q1 kept as pass (borderline).", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "fail" }, "reasons": { "correct": "\"this places B at 50 + 105 - 90 = 55 S\": 50+105-90 = 65, not 55; the correct latitude is 105-50 = 55 S, so the written computation is invalid even though the stated value is right.", "right_amount": "Excess solution disclosure: beyond the next step (distance = 900x7 = 6300 nmi, per reference), the response also converts to degrees and boxes the final answer to part (b), \"105 deg\", and adds B's latitude." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "97bf9f354da8540951fe", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "f5b04f82832aa4e8c824", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "fail" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"The only computed value written is the blue D = 60 deg\": image_1 shows 'D = 60 theta', the relation distance = 60 x angle, not a computed value of 60 degrees.", "right_place": "Unsupported error allegation: \"correcting the written value ... the written D = 60 deg is replaced by 105 deg\" treats the student's valid relation D = 60 theta as a wrong answer; the student's approach is valid and only needs D = 900x7 computed.", "right_amount": "Excess solution disclosure: response merges distance and conversion and gives the final answer \"the difference between A and B is 105 deg\", beyond the single next step (distance 6300 nmi)." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "20a01f63cc06318f764a", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "d7156a9d1e5159099fc0", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Arithmetic 3.142 x 196 = 615.832 is correct; the defect is the invented prerequisite error.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "Unsupported error allegation: \"Correct the unsupported height substitution by retaining h as unknown\". image_3 records the data h = 20 alongside r = 6, R = 10, and the valid working in image_4 continues from it; nothing shows h = 20 is wrong, so the response abandons a valid approach instead of giving the next step (36+60+100 = 196, V = (62.84/3)(196))." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "a664e5df616b9ffc7858", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Arithmetic checked: 62.84 x 196 = 12316.64, /3 = 4105.55. Claim that the student 'is treating 62.84/3 as a quantity to be divided immediately' is an inference from pen position only.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "fail" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "Excess solution disclosure: the next step is summing the bracket (196); the response also multiplies and divides to the final answer \"V approx 4105.55 cm^3\", completing the whole problem." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "2d17543479bddc983b74", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Goes slightly past reference (q in {2,3}) by testing p = 8, 9 and closing case 1; judged a minimal extension, not a full solution.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "fce98727c793dd07e226", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Also tests p = q+6 for q = 2, 3 to close case 1; minimal extension beyond reference.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "9c0a914ee3d73983b9c5", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Also tests p = q+6 for q = 2, 3 to close case 1; minimal extension beyond reference.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "45612e06b30371f45199", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict: reference sets a+b=3, a-b=13 for Case I (following the student's ordered-pair enumeration, a case later rejected); response assigns a+b=13, a-b=3 using a+b>a-b. Mathematically valid alternative, accepted.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "9636025cb0ec2ac99bcd", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict as for other responses (a+b=13, a-b=3 vs reference a+b=3, a-b=13); valid alternative. Also solves the system to (8,5), one step past the reference; borderline scope but one case only, not the full solution (39x1 case remains).", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "d11d012560a7a3bc16d5", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict (a+b=13, a-b=3 vs reference a+b=3, a-b=13); valid alternative, and the response explicitly shows the reverse ordering gives b=-5. Solves Case I to (8,5), one step past the reference; borderline scope, not the full solution.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "90fe6b7cd5f10780e475", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "421798c49d89bbac66c9", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Squaring is mathematically valid and the quartic expansion x^4-8x^3+6x^2+40x+25 is correct; the issue is abandoning the student's in-progress line. Borderline: some coders may accept squaring as a supported alternative.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "\"the next decisive move must eliminate the radical, not reshape the right side\" / \"Square both sides of sqrt(11-x) = x^2-4x-5\": image_1 last line shows the student mid-way through a valid completing-the-square move (x^2 - 2.x.2 + 2^2 - 5 - 4); the response sets this valid in-progress approach aside as a 'detour' instead of finishing it to (x-2)^2 - 9, so it does not address the student's actual current step." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "fa42ed8a03ed2c592137", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "3a37b725956a7467d627", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference next step is f'(x)=5x^4-3x^2+1; response gives this (with positivity) in Insight and prescribes bracketing f(1)<0 0 is correct.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "081b80a2eb19e707c787", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Goes one step past the reference (a^2b^2c^2=120000) by taking the square root; treated as part of the single key step 'find abc'.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "\"abc = 200\\sqrt{3} (positive root, consistent with all three pairwise products being positive)\" — image_1 gives only ab=40, bc=50, ca=60; positive pairwise products force a,b,c to share a sign but do not force abc>0 (a,b,c all negative also works), so (abc)^2=120000 gives abc=±200√3; the stated justification for discarding the negative root is invalid." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "a68e20a8bc7803929873", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Includes square root beyond reference a^2b^2c^2=120000; acceptable as completing 'determine abc'. Correctly keeps ±.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "1a88ccb305dfaa3e3228", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Takes positive root 'as is standard' — an explicitly flagged convention rather than a false derivation; strictly abc=±200√3. Square root goes slightly beyond reference.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "62432234bd14387ecb7a", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Q4 kept pass: all three sections present; insufficiency stems from the wrong claim already recorded in Q2/Q3.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"the visible figure supplies no value for ∠AOB and no diameter or side‑equality mark\" — image_1 shows tick marks on chords AC and AB (just below the level of O), indicating AB = AC; the response misses this given.", "correct": "\"x is not determined by the figure as drawn; one given ... is missing\" — with the marked AB = AC, ∠ACB = (180°−65°)/2 = 57.5° and x = 57.5°−25° = 32.5° is determined. The fallback 'if AB is a diameter ... x = 65°' is also inconsistent with the figure (O does not lie on AB).", "right_place": "Instead of the next step (use isosceles △ABC to get ∠ACB = 57.5°), the response targets an invented missing-given problem and tells the student to retrieve a given; the guidance does not address the student's actual next move." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "f290f684fc2216c2d791", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Mathematics correct throughout; correctly flags malformed line 180°−130° = 50°/2.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "fail" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "\"x = ∠ACO = ∠ACB − ∠OCB = 57.5° − 25° = 32.5°. Thus x = 32.5°\" — after the next key step (∠ACB = 57.5°, as in the reference) the response continues to the problem's final answer, disclosing the full solution beyond the single next step." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "8b0fb2fc647c4aefeba1", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "69f4ed07c2e87a4136a1", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Rational-root testing is a valid alternative to the reference decomposition −100 = −125 + 25.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "\"f(1)=1-1-100=-99\" — 1−1−100 = −100, not −99; an arithmetic error in the executed root test (the final root K=5 is still correct, but the shown computation is wrong)." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "07edf7dc632390d32462", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Valid alternative (rational root theorem). Bundles root-finding with synthetic division to (k−5)(k^2+4k+20); slightly beyond a single step but stops before resolving k, so not treated as excess disclosure.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.300Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "3cf8b1b4cb763867c58c", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Valid alternative to reference.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "25e1a668fd3bed63c516", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "8bf0f4fa603715dac084", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Insight section is brief but supplies the key detail and rationale.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "0eec44d0050774f71b1a", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "8eee0b37daadd0ac21ee", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Mathematics of the b=0 case is correct: gcd(−1,0)=1 gives (a,b)=(−1,0). Uncertain whether coders would treat the omitted case as an authorized earliest-error correction.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "Prescription \"Correct the sign restriction to b≥0, and examine the omitted case b=0\" — the b=0 omission (red note 'b positive', image_2) is genuine, but it does not invalidate the student's current b>1 branch b(b^2+1)=a^2+a; the response never gives the next step there (e.g., gcd(a,b)=1 and b | a(a+1) ⇒ b | a+1, a+1=kb, as in the reference), so it redirects to a side case instead of the student's actual stuck point." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "380728bab6d24fa866e9", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "fail" }, "reasons": { "correct": "\"from gcd(a,a+1)=1 deduce b∣a or b∣a+1 ... they must divide distinct terms\" and the result \"no coprime integer solutions with b>1\" — b can split its prime factors between a and a+1 (e.g., 6 | 2·3), so the matching {a,a+1}={b,b^2+1} does not follow; indeed (a,b)=(5,3) gives 25+5=30=27+3 with gcd(5,3)=1, contradicting the conclusion. Also 'hence b≥1' from a^2+a≥0 should be b≥0.", "right_amount": "Execution solves the whole b>1 branch and states the final answer \"the only solutions are (a,b)=(1,1) and (−2,1)\" — a full solution far beyond the single next step (reference: b | a+1, write a+1=kb)." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "047604d179a6f3df6e12", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Correctly flags that the 'b positive' note supports only b≥0.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "fail" }, "reasons": { "correct": "\"By unique factorization, two coprime factor pairs with equal products must match pairwise\" — false (e.g., 5·6 = 3·10 with both pairs coprime); hence \"There are no solutions for b>1\" is wrong: (a,b)=(5,3) satisfies 5^2+5=30=3^3+3 with gcd 1.", "right_amount": "Execution works through all cases and gives the final answer \"(a,b)=(−2,1) and (1,1)\" — a full solution beyond the single next key step." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "92340fffafa905230be7", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Matches reference (both limits evaluated, result 0).", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "6785c90712e1dcd92c45", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Matches reference.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "a42b33bac78ca4aa148d", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Flags that u=t^{-1}→∞ covers only t→0^+ (valid rigor point, not an invented error) and evaluates only the numerator limit; does not combine with denominator to get 0, but the key next operation is completed.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "9fc42be103cbe6b3ae2f", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Adds du and v beyond reference u=ln x, dv=dx; part of completing the setup.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "20185e4a55d05db167bf", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "6757eaab453a05cffb85", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Mildly speculative about the student's recognition ('has not recognized that the integrand must be read as the product'), not consequential.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "5bbafaf867a703a9053e", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Matches reference.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "495a0378d250c189752c", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Bundles difference of squares, substitution xy=99 and square root to x^2+y^2=202 — beyond the reference step ((x^2+y^2)^2−(2xy)^2=40^2); borderline scope, treated as one 'find x^2+y^2' step since x+y is not reached. Arithmetic checked: 198^2=39204, 202^2=40804.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "207888719dd7bd31b18a", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Adds substitution xy=99 beyond reference; within scope.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "5f31afedb15a23a0f63d", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Extracts common factor (Y−3) one step past reference; within scope.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "01438ea59535e13e5427", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "5f61cee2fcd3cc45fcc6", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Goes beyond factoring to discriminant check and y=3 (borderline scope); stops before solving 5^x=3, so not treated as full-solution disclosure.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "1c60987e5ef5f1ded1ff", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Matches reference; brief but complete.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "73b148eaa597d85df097", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Mathematics, including x=−3 check, is correct.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "fail" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "\"then take the square root of both sides ... x=±√9=±3\" plus verification — after the next step x^2=9 (reference) the response solves the whole problem and verifies both roots, disclosing the final answer beyond the single next operation." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "f7dd11f1ea322b3a14dd", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "d4c45c0c075a3219c402", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Valid alternative to reference (rewrites each bracket as (sin x ± cos x)/√(sin x cos x) and splits). 'numerator is exactly the derivative of (sin x ∓ cos x)' holds up to sign for the second bracket; not material.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "17eac45da168d639f2f3", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Valid alternative: substitution u=√tan x−√cot x; derivative and u^2+2 = tan x+cot x checked and correct.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "e3f98821316739ed644e", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Valid alternative to reference.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "623d992af6278094d110", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Mathematics correct (bearing of O from P = 195°, so arc at O = 15°). Problem text not visible, so it is uncertain whether 15° is the final answer; the arc at O is the only marked unknown.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "fail" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "\"x=60°−45°=15°. The blank angle at O (the bearing of P from O) is 15°\" — the next step in image_1 is establishing the 60° interior angles of the equilateral △OPQ (reference); the response takes that as given and carries on through the supplement 45° and the alternate-angle argument to the value of the only marked unknown (the arc at O), i.e. it resolves the target rather than giving a single next step." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "3259779f6d0690e35bdc", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Format: [Operation Execution] appears before [Operation Prescription]; all three sections present. Mathematics correct.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "fail" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "\"This single operation resolves the marked unknown at O as 15°\" — the response chains ∠OPQ=60°, bearing 135°+60°=195°, back-bearing 195°−180°=15°, plus a coordinate check; it resolves the only marked unknown (arc at O) instead of stopping at the single next step (60° interior angles, as in the reference)." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "8dbb05e68224296922e3", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Matches reference.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "0c48544deb0ce8839df5", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Student's line passes through (0,1),(1,0),(4,-3), i.e. x+y=1; shading extends into negative x/y. Teacher reference (not shading/labeling) is vague; response is a supported alternative.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "07ed36a6f6f9eab3daf5", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Terse: 'Misplaced line' does not say which line (x=4 is correct, diagonal is x+y=1); 'wrong shading' is defensible only as wrong feasible region (direction relative to student's lines is correct, but region bounded by wrong line and includes negatives).", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "cd455e39aee705535434", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "'shading wrong' defensible as the resulting region is wrong (bounded by x+y=1, includes negatives), though shading direction itself is correct.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "4ab4c98cc1bdbba79277", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Student table: 3-2, 1-2/3, 2-1 1/3, 5-3 1/3, 10-6 2/3, all proportional. The denominator in the 5 row is tiny and blurry (could be read as 5) but 3 is the most plausible reading and matches the teacher reference.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "f7650f1dd390c93247e6", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Same as other 'Yes' response; 5-row denominator slightly ambiguous but most plausibly 3.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "7bdbf00b63970d744c32", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leaning fail: the reading 3 1/3 is more plausible and the reference supports it.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "unverifiable", "correct": "unverifiable", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'the 5-tablespoon row doesn't' depends on reading the 5-row entry as 3 1/5; the denominator is a tiny blurry glyph that is most plausibly 3 (giving 3 1/3 = 10/3, proportional) and the teacher reference says all values maintain the ratio. Asserted with certainty without noting the ambiguity.", "correct": "'No' is correct only if the entry is 3 1/5; if 3 1/3 (likeliest reading, matches reference) the 5 row is proportional and the verdict is wrong. Image resolution prevents a firm decision." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "1f29c6e861b45a5d207a", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "8344adf4045b9fc895e3", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "752c1240204507b3c573", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "'to estimate' gives the purpose of rounding (problem asks to estimate the product) rather than why 20 specifically (nearest ten); defensible but less informative than the reference.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "caf150ac387e1c694854", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'No error.' ignores the visible paw label 24 at the fifth tick (paws line reads 4, 8, 12, 16, 24).", "correct": "'No error.' gives unjustified credit: 5 cats have 20 paws, but the student wrote 24.", "right_place": "'No error.' misses the student's actual error (24 instead of 20 on the paws line)." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "555cba4b6a730004a350", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "3b451465c3da16915ae7", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "a58e108bbafba4766eb3", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'4/6, 1/2, 2/3, 3/4' misreads the labels: the image shows 0 (over a faint denominator), 1/3, 2/3, 3/3; there is no 4/6, 1/2 or 3/4 on the line (4/6 appears only in the problem text).", "correct": "The reported set of labelled values is incorrect for three of four labels (1/2 and 3/4 are not on the line; the first label is 0, not 4/6)." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "bd57c3cbff62d2e6e13a", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Denominators under 0 and 1 are faint; '0/3' vs teacher's '0' is a meaning-preserving reading.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "da535e386a65af715dc1", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'4/6, 1/2' misreads the first two labels, which show 0 and 1/3 (the 1 over a faint denominator); 4/6 appears only in the problem text.", "correct": "The reported set of labelled values is incorrect for two of four labels." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "3948bc71c0c44afe80e6", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict: teacher answer says E was plotted at (-3,-2), but the visible 'E.' is above the x-axis at the y=2 line, roughly above A's x-position (-3); the point at (-3,-2) is labelled A (given point). E appears correctly at (-3,2). Axis tick labels are messy but plausibly -7..0.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "19a8b9af041f34557775", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'No point plotted or labeled.' contradicts the image: a dot labelled 'E.' is visible in the upper-left quadrant at about (-3,2), and A, B, C, D are also plotted and labelled.", "correct": "The error claim is false; the requested point is plotted and labelled.", "right_place": "'No point plotted or labeled.' is an invented error not supported by the work." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "91a4e57f3a7cd02cd524", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'Did not plot point E.' contradicts the visible 'E.' dot at about (-3,2) in the student's upper-left quadrant.", "correct": "The error claim is false; E is plotted.", "right_place": "'Did not plot point E.' is an invented error (and also differs from the teacher reference's location claim)." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "33efbe12837caba00546", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Student sketches original plus three rotated copies as a pinwheel sharing the centre vertex Z, drawn by hand without grid.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "6a4fe660af75684a6af3", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "5c976e9778e21b9a434a", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Largely restates the task, but accurately describes the visible approach.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "60332f1c6c3c2ff17eee", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Q2 passed because 2×2≠7 is true as stated; the defect is the misreading.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'2×2=7' invents an equals sign: the bottom line reads '2×27' (or '2×2 7') with no '=' written.", "right_place": "Targets only the last line and misses the earliest issue: the work (29, 20+9, 2×27) never checks 93÷7 with quotient×divisor+remainder at all; the first line 29 is already unrelated to the required check." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "74e21162361c4b571989", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Defensible: the student's work is built on 29 (29, 20+9) rather than the dividend 93 or a quotient/divisor check; 'instead of 93' slightly implies a substitution the image cannot confirm. Uncertain.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "70d43a28e2a3eb9831e9", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "'Wrong numbers' is vague but supported (numbers unrelated to checking 93÷7).", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'false equation' asserts an equation that is not visible: the lines are '29', '20+9' (a true decomposition) and '2×27', with no '=' written." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "477a1ff72214a6da5cd4", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict: teacher answer says student put 300 inside. The dividend is written 3|0|0 with column lines (i.e., 3 with appended zeros, equivalent to 3.00, consistent with quotient 0.06) and 50 outside, so 'Yes' is a defensible reading of the target. '3 inside' omits the appended zeros. Uncertain given reference.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "4542fb6d300b016253c4", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict: teacher answer says student put 300 inside. The dividend is written 3|0|0 with column lines (i.e., 3 with appended zeros, equivalent to 3.00, consistent with quotient 0.06) and 50 outside, so 'Yes' is a defensible reading of the target.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "35d60f5d4708ca0a85da", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict: teacher answer says student put 300 inside. The dividend is written 3|0|0 with column lines (i.e., 3 with appended zeros, equivalent to 3.00, consistent with quotient 0.06) and 50 outside, so 'Yes' is a defensible reading of the target.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "482d1df9e63792a39ac2", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Uncertain: the parts are visibly uneven (left part noticeably narrower), so 'unequal' is a true observation; the fail is on the verdict under the estimate instruction.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'No; the parts are unequal.' Both strips are split into three parts labelled/used as thirds (top: 1/?, 1/?, shaded; bottom: three shaded parts, giving 4/3). The problem explicitly says 'Estimate to draw', so roughly sized hand-drawn thirds are acceptable; rejecting the partition as incorrect is not a defensible marking decision (teacher reference: correctly partitioned)." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "7b5365926c3b622c9160", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'bottom rectangle is halves' misreads the drawing: the bottom strip has two vertical dividers forming three shaded parts (with the one shaded top part this makes 4 thirds = 4/3, as written below).", "correct": "'No' is unsupported; both rectangles are partitioned into three parts as an estimate.", "right_place": "Bases the answer on an invented error (halves) rather than the actual partitions." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "c8305727661099228891", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'bottom has two parts' misreads the drawing: the bottom strip has two vertical dividers and three shaded parts.", "correct": "'No' is unsupported; both rectangles are partitioned into three parts as an estimate.", "right_place": "Bases the answer on an invented error (two parts)." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "51a107f30eab2d0d31da", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Measured: first point is at about (1.33, 16) vs V(1.25)=28; peak (4, ~255) and close (8, 0) match. The deviation is real but small (about 1/3 of a 40-visitor grid square) for a task that asks to 'sketch a graph that could represent'; teacher reference says no error. Calling it an error is a strict-tolerance but visually supported judgment. Vague ('wrong location') but identifies the point. Uncertain.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "b79fb8added663eac5a9", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Matches reference; defensible since the task is a sketch and all three statements are approximately represented.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "7306aab5397205829b62", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "'plotted too low' is visually accurate (point at ~16 visitors, ~1.33 h, below the 28 target); whether a sketch deviation counts as an error is a tolerance judgment, and the reference says no error. Uncertain.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "af79ae7a0a134774216e", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'Into three vertical strips' is not what is drawn: the student's parallelogram has a single vertical cut near the right end forming a right triangle, with an arrow moving it to the left; the separate grid drawing above has four bold column strips, not three, and is not the decomposition.", "correct": "Describes the wrong decomposition (three strips) instead of one vertical cut producing a triangle and a trapezoid.", "right_place": "Answers about an invented decomposition rather than the student's actual cut-and-move of the right triangle." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "c34f6e1e1398e7721100", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Accurate but omits that the cut is vertical on the right side and moved left; acceptable at five-word preference.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "609bff5eb655aa984926", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "f334c5203b71af057a23", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Rightmost shape is a parallelogram with a diagonal cut (non-right angles); left and middle shapes are hand-drawn rectangles.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "78e24f9beae61dfea465", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'the left one' misidentifies the shape: the leftmost drawing is a (hand-drawn) square/rectangle with a diagonal, i.e. right angles; the non-right-angled quadrilateral is the rightmost parallelogram.", "correct": "Attributes non-right angles to the wrong quadrilateral.", "right_place": "Points the teacher to the wrong figure." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "92caedd03ad676a05ed1", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "5db8e9aa32ea805d1fd4", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "fail" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"Unclear; shading ambiguous.\" The model is messy but red vertical shading clearly fills the left 3 of the 5 columns (blue horizontal shading marks the 2/3); the claimed ambiguity is not supported by the image.", "right_amount": "Omission: gives no description of how 3/5 is represented, although the image supports one (3 of 5 columns shaded red)." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "221e8175402fd2203782", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Does not state 'of 5', but three red-shaded columns answers the question.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "3537ea413c0e8fbebef2", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "4c274027d94c07196612", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict: teacher answer says the values share the ratio, but the last water label reads 16 (not 18) under powder 12; 12:16 is not equivalent to 4:6. Earlier pairs 2:3...10:15 are correct.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "e75cc1e06cd56e0271fe", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict: teacher answer says yes, but the final pair 12:16 breaks the 4:6 ratio (should be 18). 'Last value wrong' is terse but identifies it.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "c3aeb5af3c63d5685b03", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict: teacher answer says yes, but the final pair 12:16 breaks the 4:6 ratio.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "ad507de51e2c0938d1cb", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "The '20' in the yellow column is written somewhat like '70' but the x4 annotation and 24 confirm 20.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"Row 3 red value wrong\" is not grounded in the image: the red column reads 6, 12, 24, 3, all consistent with the yellow column 5, 10, 20, 2 1/2 (x2, x4, x1/2).", "correct": "\"Row 3 red value wrong\": whichever row is meant (24 for 20 yellow, or 3 for 2 1/2 yellow), the value preserves the 5:6 ratio; the marking decision is incorrect.", "right_place": "Unsupported error allegation: the work has no error (teacher reference agrees), so the response targets an invented error." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "409979e15e4803dce113", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "4d7092f2efe87632f325", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "99bc6ffdcdc555a48c7d", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict: teacher answer says the reflection is correct, but the student's X'Y'Z' has the same orientation as XYZ (X' apex on top, Y' left, Z' right, base roughly horizontal) - essentially a translation above the line. A reflection across the slanted line l would reverse orientation and put X' (nearest vertex to l) nearest the line. 'No' is supported.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "585d05fa54aabfc8f332", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict: teacher answer says correct, but the drawn image preserves orientation (looks translated, not reflected); X is nearest l in the original but X' is farthest from l in the image. 'No' is supported.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "d6f023f8d5a4adcb7d9f", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict: teacher answer says correct, but the drawn image preserves orientation (looks translated, not reflected). 'No' is supported.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "64e93ef916ff01dd82bf", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Student's part C check shows 7 x 2 = 14 and 1 - 1 = 0 rather than 14 x 4 + 0 = 56. 'Wrong numbers' is accurate but vague (does not name 14 x 4 or the subtraction). Reference conflict: teacher answer concerns not showing 56 distributed into 4 groups, which does not match the highlighted part C work.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "826747dade9b6698004b", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Accurately names the main check error (7 x 2 = 14 written instead of quotient x divisor 14 x 4); does not mention the 1 - 1 = 0 subtraction in place of adding the remainder. Teacher reference addresses a different (part A) issue.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "54811c042920de40cac2", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Covers both visible check problems (7 x 2 rather than 14 x 4; 1 - 1 = 0 subtraction rather than adding remainder). Teacher reference addresses a different issue.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "eed5896e7f27b063dc7a", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "The '+' between 7 and 17 is faint at this resolution; even if read as a dash, the result 24 shows addition was performed.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"Incorrectly rewrites 7-(-17) as 7-17\": the formula reads 7-(-17) = 7+17 = 24; the operator before 17 is small/faint but has a vertical stroke and the student's result 24 confirms addition. The response asserts a misreading with unsupported certainty.", "correct": "The claimed error is not present: 7-(-17) = 7+17 = 24 is correct and matches the boxed 24 F; marking it as an error is an incorrect assessment decision.", "right_place": "Unsupported error allegation: the student's work contains no error (teacher reference agrees), so the response targets an invented error." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "96e37efde0ef520f4d97", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Response is also unclear about what is reversed.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"-17 and -10 reversed\": no -17 label is written on the number line; ticks are labelled 20, 10, 0, -10, -20 in correct order, and the 17 brace runs from 0 to below -10. The claimed reversal is not visible.", "correct": "\"-17 and -10 reversed\" is not a valid error: the number line order and the 7 + 17 = 24 reasoning are correct.", "right_place": "Unsupported error allegation: the work has no error (teacher reference agrees); the response diagnoses an invented one." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "14b4439f416d152a76b6", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "f24976064301f52f4378", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Student wrote lowercase x, y, z; the response's uppercase is a minor paraphrase. A-F appear to be graphing-tool point names; including them is defensible since they are visible.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "fail" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "Omission: lists \"A, B, C, D, E, F, X, Y, Z\" but leaves out the image labels x', y', z' written next to the reflected triangle at (2,-3), (2,-1), (7,-1) - the key labels the task required." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "56ff3122fa81956f3173", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "A-F appear to be graphing-tool point names; including them is defensible.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "fail" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "Omission: \"A-F, x, y, z, y', z'\" leaves out x', which is visibly written beside point D at (2,-3)." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "350bdc642e7929935fde", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "A-F appear to be graphing-tool point names; including them alongside x,y,z and x',y',z' is defensible.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "fd32bb56404cd33fd8b5", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Student wrote 1.5 x 84 = 126.0 yards, then 126 / 3 = 42 (unlabelled) and 1.5 yd -> 4.5 Ft (per bow); no total in feet is stated (teacher reference: student did not say). The response correctly flags that 126 is labelled yards, not feet, though it does not mention the unlabelled 42.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "9596dcf46524f4027543", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Uncertain: 4.5 Ft is the only feet-labelled result at the end of the work, so some coders may accept it as the student's stated answer.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"4.5 feet\": the student's 4.5 Ft comes from converting one bow's 1.5 yards (0.5 yd = 1.5 ft, + 3 = 4.5 ft); the student never states this as the amount Jeanne must buy. The student's total is 126.0 yards and no feet total for 84 bows is written, so the attribution is unsupported." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "30a4e7e3fb7d06805838", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Uncertain: 126 / 3 = 42 looks like an attempted yards-to-feet conversion, so 42 is a plausible inferred answer, but it is not stated in feet.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"42 feet.\": 42 appears only as the unlabelled quotient of 126 / 3 in the long division; the student never labels it feet or states it as the amount to buy (the only labels are 126.0 yards and 4.5 Ft per bow). Unsupported certainty about the student's answer." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "cb877fbb9171d1898016", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Student's table shows 'red paint cups | 9 cups' and 'green paint cups | 6 cups', matching 3 x 3 and 3 x 2.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "8c3a8578a5e4266a5e8c", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "7eb439b0c01187417e92", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Possible alternative reading: the student did not extend the tape diagram with squares/batches. That could be a valid remark about representation, but the question asks whether the diagram shows 9 and 6 cups, which it does. Wording 'no cups' is materially unclear.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"numbers only, no cups\": the student wrote 'cups' after both values ('9 cups', '6 cups') and in both row labels ('red paint cups', 'green paint cups'); the claim misreads the work (if it means no drawn cup squares, it is unclear).", "correct": "\"No\": the diagram does show 9 cups of red and 6 cups of green for 3 batches (3 x 3 = 9, 3 x 2 = 6), so the negative judgement on the asked quantities is not defensible." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "0a2e5abb2219a899dc09", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Student wrote -2/1 with an arrow pointing to the drawn line through the point.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "a43e4231ca557a0478df", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "LaTeX delimiters \\( \\) in output; minor format issue.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.301Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "aafa1b083796819cfe23", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.302Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.302Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "27f3921a69589d98b6cd", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.302Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict: teacher answer says no error, but the three drawn lines all converge at the same point on the y-axis near the origin, contradicting the 'different y-intercepts' requirement; no equations are visible in the student image (they could have been entered elsewhere, so that part is less certain).", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.302Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "284f290458d0742470e3", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.302Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict: teacher answer says no error, but the three drawn lines all converge at the same point on the y-axis near the origin, contradicting the 'different y-intercepts' requirement; no equations are visible in the student image (they could have been entered elsewhere, so that part is less certain).", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.302Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "0a2bcb6ff762678aaa29", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.302Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict: teacher answer says no error, but the three drawn lines all converge at the same point on the y-axis near the origin, contradicting the 'different y-intercepts' requirement; no equations are visible in the student image (they could have been entered elsewhere, so that part is less certain).", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.302Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "ccb7f6ccdf32444adf89", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.302Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Possible reference conflict: teacher says no error, but the column placement suggests a two-place shift.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "unverifiable", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "\"No error.\": the written result 5 9 . 0 0 0 (decimal after the 9) reads as 59, which is correct and matches the teacher reference; however, tracing the chart's column lines, the lower 5 sits in the hundreds column and the 9 in the tens column (arrows move each digit two columns, tt->h, t->T), so the place-value shift appears to be two places. Whether this placement counts as an error cannot be settled from the skewed photo." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.302Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "ebfe4c26d86c96e5b7e4", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.302Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict: teacher says no error. Tracing the column lines, the lower 5 is in the hundreds column and 9 in the tens column (arrows span two columns from ten-thousands/thousands), so 'shifts two places, not three' is visually supported; the student's decimal point after 9 nevertheless gives 59.000. Uncertain case.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": {}, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.302Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "ad0b094f7ff4a1115e89", "time": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.302Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Possible reference conflict: teacher says no error, but the column placement suggests a two-place shift.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "unverifiable", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "\"There is no error.\": the written 59.000 is correct and matches the teacher reference, but the chart's column lines place the lower 5 in hundreds and 9 in tens (a two-place shift for a divide-by-1,000), so whether the work is error-free cannot be settled from the skewed photo." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.302Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "017b506707cd960491d9", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "'changes the discriminant from a difference to a product' is a fair reading of the juxtaposed b^24ac.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response is brief but complete. It gives a category, quotes the erroneous final-answer expression \\(\\sqrt{b^24ac}\\) and explains the mismatch (the minus sign is omitted, turning a difference into a product). It also states that no earlier error is supported. It stays within scope and is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "031401142c6c08ca3d60", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response correctly targets the final answer to n(T∪S) and the student's actual lines of working. It notes the correct count of 7 and the stated final value 7/10. It then applies the scheme's single mark for 7 to that final answer. Describing 7/10 as a probability is an interpretive label, not an invented error." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "032f10169103013a7525", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'the correct method setting up VA² = 15² + (5√2)²' and '225 + 50 was wrongly evaluated as 175' - image_2 shows 15² − (5√2)² = 175 with a minus sign; the student subtracted, and the arithmetic 225 − 50 = 175 is actually correct. Silent repair of the student's sign.", "correct": "'Mark: 2 / 5' - awarding the VA² method M1 is unjustified: subtracting the half-diagonal squared from the height squared is not the Pythagoras method VM² + AM². Only the AC M1 is supported, giving 1/5. Also the claim that 225 + 50 was 'wrongly evaluated as 175' misdiagnoses the error (it is a wrong operation, not an arithmetic slip).", "right_place": "It credits the student for setting up VA² = 15² + (5√2)² and says 225 + 50 was wrongly evaluated as 175. The written work subtracts (5√2)² from 15², so the awarded method credit rests on silently repaired work rather than the student's actual method." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "035cccea1ada183a9465", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'Category: 1. Calculation Error' attached to 'The scratchwork appears to state 8/28=13/24': the response itself says the line is ambiguous and does not establish an error, so the category is not assigned to a supported error; the actual supported error (unreduced 25/45, 21/24) is given no category.", "right_place": "'without a simplest-form requirement, those answers are mathematically correct': the reference requires simplest form (25/45 = 5/9, 21/24 = 7/8); the supported error is leaving both answers unsimplified (expert explanation). The response targets an ambiguous scratch fragment (strokes in image_1 between 8/2? and 13/24 could be a sloppy +; 21/24 shows the addition was done correctly) instead.", "right_amount": "Both required fields are present. The explanation quotes the visible line '8/28=13/24' and says why it is invalid (8×24 ≠ 13×28). It states the limitation that the isolated line cannot be placed in the calculation. It also flags a conflict with the reference: the student answers are equivalent to the reference answers. It is concise, clear and stays within scope. Any tension between the category and its claim that the answers are correct concerns correctness, not this criterion." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "0458f922575584bf080b", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response assesses the written 7/10 against the scheme's requirement of 7. It identifies 7/10 as a probability rather than the required count. It addresses the follow-through question by noting that the scheme authorizes no credit for the numerator alone. This matches the actual work and the actual target." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "06b69bd82e937db4ba41", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Category 5 is still defensible since the error is copying -1.6 as -16 into the final answer; the response's account of copying 'from the problem statement' rather than from the draft follows from the misreading.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'the student's first term is written as -16 — the decimal point is not placed between the 1 and the 6 (the only visible mark is a low dot under the 6...)': in image_1 the dot sits at the baseline between the 1 and the 6, exactly like the dots in 1.5 and 6.3, so the scratchwork reads -1.6. The -16 occurs only in the typed final answer (copied from the draft), so the response misreads the image to match the typed answer.", "right_amount": "The response supplies a category, the location (the first term written as -16) and the cause (a mis-copied decimal changes the value). It separates this from the correctly converted later terms and notes a legibility uncertainty in the last term. Whether its reading of the decimal point is accurate is a correctness matter. No separate completeness, scope or clarity defect is evident." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "07ed36a6f6f9eab3daf5", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Terse: 'Misplaced line' does not say which line (x=4 is correct, diagonal is x+y=1); 'wrong shading' is defensible only as wrong feasible region (direction relative to student's lines is correct, but region bounded by wrong line and includes negatives).", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "fail" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The student graph has two lines: a red vertical line at x=4 and a blue diagonal line. \"Misplaced line\" does not say which one is wrong or how. \"Wrong shading\" also gives no indication of what is wrong with the shading. The teacher is left without usable information, so the assistance is materially unclear." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "0a2bcb6ff762678aaa29", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict: teacher answer says no error, but the three drawn lines all converge at the same point on the y-axis near the origin, contradicting the 'different y-intercepts' requirement; no equations are visible in the student image (they could have been entered elsewhere, so that part is less certain).", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response clearly states that the y-intercepts are identical when the task requires different ones, and that the required equations are missing. It gives sufficient diagnostic content and adds no disclosure beyond scope. The language is appropriate." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "0a2e5abb2219a899dc09", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Student wrote -2/1 with an arrow pointing to the drawn line through the point.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response answers the teacher's 'how' question directly. It names the written -2/1 fraction, which the image shows beside the line with an arrow pointing to it. It does not solve the problem or add hints, and it is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "0afe3a0f16c44c87cef6", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Quotient digit in image_1 is overwritten but reads as 6. Logical Reasoning matches the expert; the Logical / Conceptual / Problem Comprehension boundary for remainder interpretation is open.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "It gives both required fields, a category and an explanation. The explanation names the faulty step: using 6 as the final blanket count despite the remainder of 4. It says why this is wrong: 36 pigs are seated and 4 are left over. It also separates this from the arithmetic, which it treats as correct. It is concise, clear and respectful, and it gives no full replacement solution." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "0c1d8acbef36b6387f1f", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response addresses the scheme target and the student's real progress. It credits M1 for the written (t−4)^2. It withholds A1 because the line (t−4)^2 − 56 does not give A = 56 and B = 4. Its note on A − (t−B)(t+B) refers to writing actually present on the page, not an invented error." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "0c48544deb0ce8839df5", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Student's line passes through (0,1),(1,0),(4,-3), i.e. x+y=1; shading extends into negative x/y. Teacher reference (not shading/labeling) is vague; response is a supported alternative.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response names the specific line error: it is graphed through about (0,1) and (1,0) rather than at x+y=12. It also names the shading problem: the region extends into negative quantities. Both are actionable for a teacher. It does not solve the problem or add unrequested hints." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "0ded5c3f8011a1a2b0e2", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"120 and 144\" and \"the boxed answer 5/12, derived from 500/144\" - image_1 shows 2023 = 140%, the working 100/140 cancelled to 5/7, and the boxed answer 5/7; 144, 500/144 and 5/12 are not written.", "correct": "\"Mark: 2 / 3 ... P1 (complete method using a starting value, 120 and 144)\" - the student wrote 140 (adding 20 twice), not 144, so the second P1 for compounding is not earned; best-supported mark is 1/3. The response also states the corrected 100/144 = 25/36, which is beyond what is needed.", "right_place": "The response grades invented work. The student wrote 140, not 144, and boxed 5/7, not 5/12. The response awards the second P1 for a '120 and 144' method that does not appear in the image." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "119deaf549c52655fc90", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Category boundary open; Attention & Detail defensible.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "It is concise but complete. It gives one category, quotes the second line where +2x^2 becomes -2x^2, explains why combining the x⁴ terms cannot change the x² term's sign, and calls this the earliest visible error. The second line is itself the final answer, so a separate downstream-consequence statement is not materially missing. There is no out-of-scope solution, and the language is clear." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "146eb524ba8c3c8b02f3", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Calls the decimal point unclear; it is visible in image_2 but the hedge is harmless.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response addresses the student's actual answer '9.77 cm'. It notes a genuine reading uncertainty about the decimal point, since the image shows a gap or dot between 9 and 77. It then assesses that answer against the 3 s.f. requirement. It does not invent working. Its decision to award full credit for answer-only work is a mark-policy and correctness matter, not a wrong target or fabricated progress." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "14b4439f416d152a76b6", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The task explicitly allows 'If there are none, write that there is no error.' This response does exactly that, clearly and without extra solution content. The visible work 7-(-17)=7+17=24 and the 24°F conclusion support that answer." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "1515b9b403432def575c", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading and trailing blank lines.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "unverifiable", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'The originating error is therefore the failure to carry out the required preliminary step' / '4. Procedural Error': the location (24 instead of 18 as the base sum) is correct, but the student evidently did obtain 24 by some unwritten step; whether this is a procedural omission or a conceptual misunderstanding of the perimeter (expert) cannot be decided from image_1, so the category is a genuine boundary case.", "right_amount": "The response provides the category, locates the error at the value 24 in '24 × 4' and explains that the base sum should be 28 − 5 × 2 = 18. It notes that no 28, 5 or subtraction is written, so the operation behind 24 cannot be confirmed. It identifies 48 as downstream. It is longer than necessary, but the length is redundancy rather than a scope violation or a full replacement solution. The fit of the category is a correctness matter, not a Q4 omission. The response is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "17aa8b13521b4a36474c", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Calculation vs Attention & Detail boundary for an omitted fraction reduction is open; both defensible.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "It supplies the category, flags the conflict with the supplied data, and locates the discrepancy at the unreduced 5/70. It explains the cause and records legibility uncertainty about the crossed-out terms, as the task permits. It is longer than the other responses, but it describes the student's own steps rather than giving a new solution, so it does not breach the assistance scope. It is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "1921c6e93aa721a382a0", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Location (the final step producing 3, after correct addition and conversion) is acceptable, so Q3 pass.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'the student never uses the truck's given capacity of 2 tons and performs no division of the total by that capacity': image_1 top right shows the long division 2)3 with quotient 1 written above. The response omits visible writing and asserts its absence with certainty.", "correct": "'This is a missing/incorrect step in the required procedure (total ÷ capacity...)': the division 3 ÷ 2 = 1 is present, so the error is not a skipped division step. It lies in going from the quotient 1 (remainder 1) to the answer 3 rather than 1+1 = 2. The Procedural rationale rests on a false account of the work.", "right_amount": "The response provides a category, locates the error immediately after '3000 kg = 3 t' and explains the missing division-and-round-up step. It separates the originating error from the downstream answer 3. It does not give a full replacement solution. Its claim that no division was performed conflicts with the visible '2)3' with quotient 1, but that misreading is a correctness/relevance issue rather than a Q4 sufficiency or scope defect." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "19a8b9af041f34557775", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'No point plotted or labeled.' contradicts the image: a dot labelled 'E.' is visible in the upper-left quadrant at about (-3,2), and A, B, C, D are also plotted and labelled.", "correct": "The error claim is false; the requested point is plotted and labelled.", "right_place": "'No point plotted or labeled.' is an invented error not supported by the work.", "right_amount": "It supplies a specific error diagnosis in five words, without extra solution steps or hints. The image appears to show an 'E.' mark near (-3,2), so the claim is doubtful, but that is a correctness or relevance issue. It is not a separate sufficiency, scope or clarity defect under Q4." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "1f29c6e861b45a5d207a", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response covers both parts of the teacher's question: the rounded value (20) and a reason (rounding to the nearest ten). It stays brief, adds no unrequested solution or hint, and the language is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "221e8175402fd2203782", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Does not state 'of 5', but three red-shaded columns answers the question.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response gives a direct, concise description of the representation (three columns shaded in red). It stays within scope, with no solution or extra hint, and its language is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "241f4b4c98d1f2e26d77", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines. The 24 = 28 − 4 mechanism is speculative but explicitly flagged as inferred; category matches expert explanation.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response supplies the category, the location (the 24 used as the base sum in '24 × 4') and a mismatch explanation (the base sum should be 28 − 5 × 2 = 18). It separates the downstream values 96 and 48 and notes that the subtraction producing 24 is unwritten and therefore inferred. Whether the inferred 28 − 4 origin is justified is a correctness or relevance issue, not missing content. The repeated '28 − 4 = 28−4' is minor redundancy and does not materially impair clarity. Only a brief supporting calculation is given, not a full solution." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "27f3921a69589d98b6cd", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict: teacher answer says no error, but the three drawn lines all converge at the same point on the y-axis near the origin, contradicting the 'different y-intercepts' requirement; no equations are visible in the student image (they could have been entered elsewhere, so that part is less certain).", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response directly answers the teacher's error question. It names two visible problems: the task asks for different y-intercepts, but the three lines appear to cross the y-axis at the same point near the origin, and no equations are written. It is concise, clear and respectful, and it gives no replacement equations or full solution." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "2804f09c258dd6b45105", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "M1 is somewhat borderline (intent to substitute is visible), but the written composite is incomplete and the next line is inconsistent with it. RHS of line 2 also lacks an x in the image.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'though the 5 is unclear in the bracket' - image_1 line 1 shows a clean blank gap in 4(x^2- )+3; nothing unclear is written there, and this mischaracterisation is used to support awarding credit. Also says 'the written g(x)=x^2-5' when only 'x^2-5' is written.", "correct": "'One mark is awarded for the composite function' - the student's composite 4(x^2- )+3 omits the 5 and the expansion 4x^2-23 does not follow from 4(x^2-5)+3 (=4x^2-17), so correct substitution is not shown; best-supported mark is 0/5, so 1/5 is unjustified credit.", "right_place": "The response targets the scheme marks using the student's own work. It credits the composite substitution while noting the unclear 5, withholds M2 for −23, and correctly finds no rearrangement to zero, formula use or final answer. Awarding M1 is a defensible reading, since −23 implies 4×5 was used." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "284f290458d0742470e3", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict: teacher answer says no error, but the three drawn lines all converge at the same point on the y-axis near the origin, contradicting the 'different y-intercepts' requirement; no equations are visible in the student image (they could have been entered elsewhere, so that part is less certain).", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response supplies both supported errors: the lines share a y-intercept, and the equations are missing. It stays within the diagnosis scope and does not supply corrected equations or intercepts. The meaning is clear despite the absent final punctuation." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "29323ee5fb6062466761", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response addresses the student's actual work: the addition 0.2 + 0.35 = 0.55 and the final answer 0.45. It judges this against the scheme's required product and answer. It does not describe the subtraction column, but that omission does not affect the assessment, because no creditworthy product appears anywhere." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "2d4363e1c2faffb48be6", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines. Presents '2(x-30)+x=180 → 3x-60=180' as the student's chain, whereas the image shows '2x-60+x=180, 3x=240, x=80'; meaning-preserving, not material.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response gives a category, quotes the left-case chain ending at \"x=80\", and explains that x is the vertex angle, so the base angle is x−30=50. It distinguishes the originating error from its consequence in the final answer, and it explicitly addresses the conflict-flag requirement. It is somewhat longer than the others but not materially unclear, and it does not supply a full replacement solution." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "30a4e7e3fb7d06805838", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Uncertain: 126 / 3 = 42 looks like an attempted yards-to-feet conversion, so 42 is a plausible inferred answer, but it is not stated in feet.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"42 feet.\": 42 appears only as the unlabelled quotient of 126 / 3 in the long division; the student never labels it feet or states it as the amount to buy (the only labels are 126.0 yards and 4.5 Ft per bow). Unsupported certainty about the student's answer.", "right_amount": "The response gives a concise direct numeric answer, drawn from the student's '126 ÷ 3 = 42' work. It does not solve the original problem itself or add hints, and it is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "323f23840c26b65c3121", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Answer-only case; full marks follows the standard GCSE convention (correct answer, no contradictory working, question does not demand working) and the guide's 'answer-only is not automatically zero'.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response assesses the full 5-mark question against the scheme. It engages with the student's actual submission, a bare final answer of 50.5°. It invents no working or error and applies the scheme's accepted range of 50.4–50.5. Whether answer-only work earns full marks is a correctness question, not a relevance one." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "33dcc0d4a18d17d9b951", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Category field '7. Attention & Detail Error' is given while the explanation says no error in this category can be substantiated, which is internally inconsistent. Uncertain: whether an unreduced but equivalent bound counts as an error is a convention question.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "'there is no supported earliest mathematical error to locate': the response correctly notes 5/70 = 1/14, but it omits the one supported deviation in image_1 and the student answer, namely that the circled bound x > 5/70 (from 5/10 × 1/7) was never reduced to lowest terms. The expert and the other valid readings target exactly this unreduced fraction, so the response misses the identifiable error instead of flagging equivalence while still naming it.", "right_amount": "Both required fields are present. The explanation briefly traces the visible key steps and shows that 5/70 equals 1/14. It states the evidence limitation that no earliest error is supported and flags the conflict with the 'incorrect' premise, which the scope explicitly allows. It gives no replacement solution, is clear and respectful, and is concise. Any tension between choosing category 7 and saying no error is substantiated belongs to correctness or relevance, not to sufficiency or scope." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "33efbe12837caba00546", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Student sketches original plus three rotated copies as a pinwheel sharing the centre vertex Z, drawn by hand without grid.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The teacher asks what strategy the student used. This answer names one: hand-drawn rotations around Z. It does not solve the problem or add hints, and the wording is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "34422dfdc7a7c120c7be", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Calls the left sum 'omitting the required −2', which is slightly imprecise (102 is a valid partial step), but it correctly identifies 104 = 47+55+2 as the originating slip and notes that the moment the 2 was added is unwritten. Category boundary open.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response provides the category, locates the sign/term slip in forming the combined factor (102 on the left, 104 used on the right), and explains it against 47+55−2=100. It identifies the partial products 416 and 728 and the total 7696 as downstream. It flags that the 102→104 change is not shown in the writing. It stays within scope, with only brief supporting arithmetic and clear, respectful language." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "34434a2a7711d6792064", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Sign slip -6(x+2) -> -6x+12: Procedural/Calculation/Attention boundary is genuinely open; expert gives no category. Procedural judged defensible.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response supplies all three required components. It gives one category, locates the error at the line 15x−15−6x+12=10x−30, and explains that −6(x+2) should give −6x−12. It briefly notes the downstream effect on the answer. It stays concise and gives no replacement solution." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "34f9d5c5fa8497c98855", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines. The aside about an 'inconsistent base of 24/2.4 rather than 240' overstates a harmless scaling shortcut (288-192 = 96 matches the answer) but is not the diagnosed error.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response quotes the opening setup '24 × 1.2' and '2.4 × 0.8' as the location. It explains the inverse relationship needed to recover cost and separates the downstream figures (28.8, 19.2, 9.6/96) from the originating error. It also flags the conflict with the reference, as the task requests. It does not compute the final loss or give a full worked solution. Some redundancy in the closing sentence does not make the help unclear." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "350bdc642e7929935fde", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "A-F appear to be graphing-tool point names; including them alongside x,y,z and x',y',z' is defensible.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response lists every visible label: x, y, z; x', y', z'; and A–F. It answers the teacher's question directly and concisely, without solving or evaluating the problem." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "3537ea413c0e8fbebef2", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response states the representation directly (3 of 5 columns shaded). This addresses the requested feature concisely, with no out-of-scope solution or disclosure, and is clearly worded." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "35c273b10a4d0837009d", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Earliest error correctly placed in line 1. Downstream description is misread: it quotes 's t²√(36/25) = 6', but image_1 line 2 shows s²t²√(36/15 or 75) = 8 (overwritten). Not consequential to the diagnosed earliest error. Its rendering 's²t·√(18/5·t) × (2/5)·t' also places ×(2/5)t outside the radical, whereas the overline spans it.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response provides a single category, quotes the first rewritten line as the error location, and explains the mismatch. It states which of the two mismatches it treats as earliest, separates downstream steps, and notes the disconnect with the recorded answer 15/4·√5. The corrective expressions (st√t, √(2/(5s²t))) are short supporting statements, not a full solution. It is somewhat lengthy but still clear. The claimed student belief and possible misreadings concern correctness/relevance, not Q4." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "35cfe9703281ad178717", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Some ambiguity about answer-only credit, but 1/5 (A1 without its method) is the least coherent option.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'all three M1s and the slant-edge A1 are withheld' / 'Mark: 1 / 5' - image_2 shows the correct answer 50.5° alone; the question does not require working and nothing in the scheme forbids implied credit, so under GCSE convention the correct answer implies the method marks and earns 5/5. Awarding only the final A1 is not the best-supported mark.", "right_place": "The response addresses the requested assessment and the actual work, which is only '50.5°'. It goes through each scheme component (base diagonal M1, slant-edge M1/A1, cosine-rule M1, final A1) and relates each to the absence of written method. It invents no student error. Whether the final A1 can stand alone is a scoring-correctness issue, not wrong targeting." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "35d60f5d4708ca0a85da", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict: teacher answer says student put 300 inside. The dividend is written 3|0|0 with column lines (i.e., 3 with appended zeros, equivalent to 3.00, consistent with quotient 0.06) and 50 outside, so 'Yes' is a defensible reading of the target.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "A bare 'Yes' fully answers this yes/no question about whether 3 is inside and 50 is outside the division house. It contains no out-of-scope content and is unambiguous." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "3663065d9312ec87f422", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Answer-only convention boundary; same judgment as MED-09.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "\"the A1 (cao) is awarded ... so the three method marks are withheld\" - awarding the final accuracy mark alone while withholding all method marks is incoherent (the A1 follows the M marks), and a correct 3 s.f. answer of 9.77 cm (not guessable) with no contradictory working implies the method; answer-only is not automatically limited to the A mark. Best-supported mark is 4/4, not 1/4.", "right_place": "The response assesses the student's actual submission, an answer-only line '= 9.77 cm'. It checks that line against each scheme component: A1 for the value, and the three M marks for arc length, perimeter equation and factorising. It invents no working and repairs nothing. Whether answer-only work merits 1 or 4 is a question of mark correctness, not task relevance." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "375fb451fd8a1e76bb3b", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines. Line 2 sign is somewhat cramped, but the visible '-6x = -3' resolves it.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'the student writes \"4x + 3x - 6x - 7x = 63 + 60\"' and 'the student even strikes through the 63': line 2 of image_1 shows three dash strokes before 63 (= followed by minus, i.e. '= -63 + 60'), and no strikethrough of 63 is visible; the student's next line on the right clearly reads '-6x = -3', contradicting 'they obtained -6x = 3'.", "correct": "'Because the student's misapplied transposition produced +3 instead of -3': 63 + 60 = 123, not 3, so the claimed chain from +63 to -6x = 3 is arithmetically invalid.", "right_place": "Misses the earliest supported error: the image shows correct transposition and -6x = -3, so the error is in the final division (-3)/(-6) given as -1/2 (expert explanation). The response targets an invented transposition error.", "right_amount": "Both required fields are present. The response quotes the transposition line, explains why −63 should keep its sign and traces the downstream steps to −1/2. Referring to the reference result (−6x = −3, x = 0.5) is brief support, not a new worked solution. The response is longer than ideal, but it stays clear and respectful. The strike-through claim is a fidelity issue, not a separate scope defect." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "3948bc71c0c44afe80e6", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict: teacher answer says E was plotted at (-3,-2), but the visible 'E.' is above the x-axis at the y=2 line, roughly above A's x-position (-3); the point at (-3,-2) is labelled A (given point). E appears correctly at (-3,2). Axis tick labels are messy but plausibly -7..0.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "It gives a direct answer to the teacher's question about errors, using the task's allowed 'no error' form. It is concise and clear, adds no extra solution or hints, and stays within scope." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "3ad55aeb3477f0bcc144", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Category boundary for the omitted km->m conversion (Procedural / Attention & Detail / Problem Comprehension) is genuinely open; Procedural defensible. The closing 'conflict' note (left 4896 already equals the meter value) is slightly confusing, since image_1 shows 4.896 with a decimal dot after the 4, but the response hedges it.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "Both required fields are present. The response locates the error at the final reported value, 2.448 = 4.896 ÷ 2, explains the missing km→m conversion, and separates that error from the correct multiplication. The 4896 ÷ 2 = 2448 calculation is a short supporting calculation, not a full replacement solution. It is somewhat wordy, and the 'conflict' note is not a true source conflict, but the help stays clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "3b451465c3da16915ae7", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "It succinctly identifies the erroneous written value, 24, and its correction, 20. Read against the student's number line, where 24 appears only once as the final paw label, the error is unambiguous. It stays within scope and is respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "3b8ec1b05a245e9ac431", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response grades the student's actual work as written: 2022 = 120%, 2023 = 140%, and 100/140 cancelled to the boxed 5/7. It ties each scheme mark to that work. It withholds the second P1 because 140% does not show compounding." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "3d42654504a0649b4550", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "It describes the actual student work and applies the scheme to it. It notes the half-diagonal 5√2 and AC = 10√2, the subtraction of (5√2)² from 15² giving 5√7, and the unsquared 10√2 on the left of the cosine-rule line. Withholding the slant-edge marks and the cosine-rule M is consistent with the written work." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "3e1a91a8db20a29625a7", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response addresses the actual student lines. It ties M1 to the (t−4)² on line 2 and acknowledges that line 2 is not equivalent to the original. It also notes that the final exponent appears to be 4. It then makes an explicit, scheme-based judgment that A=56 and B=4 are still identifiable." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "3e5b002cd960534fdaeb", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "All three responses quote line 2 as '4x^2 - 23 = 4x + 3'; the image RHS reads '= 4 +3' with no visible x (gap). Not material to the mark since the -23 already loses the equation mark.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response assesses the student's actual lines against each scheme mark. It covers the blank in the composite, the −23 equation and the absence of a zero-set quadratic, formula substitution or final answer. Writing '4x' where the image shows '4 +3' does not change any scheme decision, because M2 fails on −23 regardless." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "3f3aae12b56c50d35d0e", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "The inner exponent's denominator is overwritten (3 over another digit), but the numerator 1 is legible either way, so no reading yields a correct step.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"The lower-left exponent appears to read 3/2\" - in image_2 the inner exponent has a clear '1' as numerator over a (heavily overwritten) 3, i.e. 3^(1/3), which matches the student's next expression 3^(5/3); a numerator of 3 is not visible.", "correct": "\"making 1/(3^(3/2))⁵ a correct first step and earning M1\" - on the visible writing the expression is (3^(1/3))⁵ = 3^(5/3), not (√27)⁵ = 3^(15/2), and the preceding 1/27⁵ is also wrong, so M1 is not earned; best-supported mark is 0/3.", "right_place": "The response grades the actual student lines. It notes the incorrect 1/27⁵ and credits the index-form first step 1/(3^{3/2})⁵ as a valid alternative to (3√3)⁵. It also flags the uncertain reading of the exponent. It correctly withholds the second M1 and the A1 because there is no rationalisation and no final answer √3/6561." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "409979e15e4803dce113", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The task explicitly allows 'If there are none, write that there is no error.' The response gives exactly that verdict. The visible student entries (10/12, 20/24, 2 1/2 / 3, with ·2, ·4, ·1/2 annotations) support it. It adds no extra solution and is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "41288332abeded8e3a5a", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response addresses the student's actual combination to 40 kg per metre and the calculation 100 ÷ 40 = 2.5. It applies the scheme's requirement of a single-ingredient process and withholds A1 for lack of correct justification. This matches the scheme's condition. No work is repaired or invented." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "44b28141cf126b3900e3", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "It addresses the actual student work, mainly the clear final answer of 50.5. It checks that answer against the scheme's accepted range and acknowledges that the small markings are unclear. It invents no working and no error. Awarding full credit for an unsupported correct answer is a plausible GCSE reading, and the claim stays tied to the real submission." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "4542fb6d300b016253c4", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict: teacher answer says student put 300 inside. The dividend is written 3|0|0 with column lines (i.e., 3 with appended zeros, equivalent to 3.00, consistent with quotient 0.06) and 50 outside, so 'Yes' is a defensible reading of the target.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response directly answers the yes/no question about placement. That is sufficient for the requested target, and it adds no extra work or hints." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "4567730c3df79820c61c", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Calculation vs Attention & Detail boundary for +2 instead of −2 is open; Calculation is defensible and matches the expert's 'calculated −2 as +2'.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response concisely supplies the category, the location (102 correctly computed, then 104 used) and the mathematical mismatch (102−2=100 was required; 104 has the effect of adding 2). It states the genuine evidence limitation that the intervening operation is unwritten. It notes that the 104×74=7696 multiplication is downstream and correct. No prohibited extra solution is given." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "477a1ff72214a6da5cd4", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict: teacher answer says student put 300 inside. The dividend is written 3|0|0 with column lines (i.e., 3 with appended zeros, equivalent to 3.00, consistent with quotient 0.06) and 50 outside, so 'Yes' is a defensible reading of the target. '3 inside' omits the appended zeros. Uncertain given reference.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response gives the requested yes/no answer and briefly confirms the placement: 3 inside and 50 outside. It does not solve the division or add unrequested hints, and it is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "482d1df9e63792a39ac2", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Uncertain: the parts are visibly uneven (left part noticeably narrower), so 'unequal' is a true observation; the fail is on the verdict under the estimate instruction.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'No; the parts are unequal.' Both strips are split into three parts labelled/used as thirds (top: 1/?, 1/?, shaded; bottom: three shaded parts, giving 4/3). The problem explicitly says 'Estimate to draw', so roughly sized hand-drawn thirds are acceptable; rejecting the partition as incorrect is not a defensible marking decision (teacher reference: correctly partitioned).", "right_amount": "The response gives a direct yes/no answer to whether each rectangle was partitioned into thirds and adds a brief supporting reason. It does not solve the problem or disclose extra work, and the wording is clear and respectful. Whether the reason is accurate belongs to another criterion." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "489f546f138ba8f2c237", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "unverifiable", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'Category: 6. Logical Reasoning Error': the arithmetic (233 - 6*38 = 5) is correct, but the category boundary between treating the insufficient condition 5x+38<6x as logical reasoning versus mistranslating 'less than 5 boxes' (Problem Comprehension, expert) is not decidable from the work.", "right_place": "'No invalid algebraic step is visible, so an earlier error cannot be reliably localized in the scratchwork': the earliest error is identifiable in image_1 line 2, '5x+38 < 6x', which mis-models 'the last person gets less than 5 boxes' (should be 5x+38 < 6(x-1)+5). The response declines to locate it and diagnoses only the resulting minimum 39.", "right_amount": "Both fields are present. It points to the written steps 5x+38<6x and 38 120 step is the 20% increase process; a complete process implies the first P1, and 25/36 with supporting working earns A1. Withholding the first P1 while awarding the second is inconsistent; best-supported mark is 3/3.", "right_place": "The response treats the starting-value route as complete for the second P1, yet withholds the first P1 because no 1.2 or 6/5 is shown. The scheme lists the 100, 120, 144 method as an authorized complete process, so this route does not need a separate multiplier. The response also invents a feature of the work: the handwriting is not upside-down. Its reading of the top line as an incorrect error is speculative." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "52d7825482c4843bfeab", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Calls the lower scratchwork 'too faint'; it is cramped and overlapping rather than faint, which is not consequential. Category boundary Attention & Detail vs Conceptual is open.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response provides a category, locates the error at the rounding step and explains that the student rounded to one decimal place instead of two. It notes that the lower scratchwork is faint and explains why its localisation does not depend on those lines. There is no replacement solution beyond the supplied reference value, and the language is respectful. Any diagnostic inaccuracy belongs to other criteria." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "5357e5717ee93f130885", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response grades the student's actual written work: \"1m = 40kg\", then \"100 kg ÷ 40 = 2.5\", then \"2.5 meters\". It correctly treats 100 ÷ 40 as neither a single-ingredient length process (25 ÷ 10 or 100 ÷ 30) nor the complete process. It rightly withholds A1 because the 2.5 answer is not supported by a correct justification. No error is invented." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "53a72510f907aaffd891", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Student writes ∓ rather than ± in the formula; immaterial since both roots are given.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'The last factor under the radical ... appears to be 20, rather than -20' - image_1 formula line reads √((-4)^2 - 4×4×-20); a minus sign is visible between the final × and 20 (enlarged view confirms). Consequential misreading used to withhold a mark.", "correct": "'the substitution mark is withheld' / 'Mark: 4 / 5' - the substitution -(-4)±√((-4)^2-4×4×(-20))/(2×4) is correct for 4x^2-4x-20=0, so the scheme supports 5/5; withholding M4 is unsupported.", "right_place": "The response withholds the substitution mark for an error that does not appear in the work. The image shows the radicand as (−4)²−4×4×−20, with a minus written before the 20. The student had also just labelled c under −20, and the subsequent correct answers (1±√21)/2 are consistent with −20 having been used. Withholding the mark on the claimed '20' reading therefore grades an invented error." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "54500dafbc902c1f0a7b", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Conceptual is defensible given the open category boundary. 'reflects a misunderstanding of what the remainder means' is a mild belief inference.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "It gives the category and an explanation. The explanation describes the visible division (6 ) 40, 36, remainder 4) and locates the error as reporting the quotient 6 while ignoring the remainder. It explains why the remainder must be rounded up and separates the originating error from the downstream answer of 6. The supporting calculation 6 + 1 = 7 is short and allowed. The text is somewhat long but still a targeted explanation, not a full solution, and the language is respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "54811c042920de40cac2", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Covers both visible check problems (7 x 2 rather than 14 x 4; 1 - 1 = 0 subtraction rather than adding remainder). Teacher reference addresses a different issue.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "This response supplies a direct answer naming two error features: incorrect factors, and subtraction where the task requires addition. It stays within scope with no solution disclosure. The wording is concise and clear enough for a teacher." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "554d512783969ce037f3", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Withholding A1 for the ^4 is a defensible strict reading; the response notes the alternative.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response addresses the actual work. It awards M1 for (t−4)² on line 2 and reads the final line as written, with an exponent that looks like 4. It flags the alternative reading and withholds A1 on that stated basis. Whether withholding is the best mark is a correctness matter; the target and the student's progress are addressed." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "555cba4b6a730004a350", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "It names the specific written error, the final paw value of 24, and briefly states the expected value, 20. This is a short allowed correction rather than a full replacement solution. The response is clear, appropriately concise and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "56b22098e964ff6e2290", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'Award M1 on follow-through for √(15²+5²)=√250, treating 5 as their half-diagonal, and M1 for doubling tan⁻¹(5/15)' - image_2 shows no diagonal calculation at all; 5 is half the side, not 'their' half of a computed AC, so the scheme's follow-through ('their √200 / 2') does not apply, and doubling tan⁻¹(5/15) finds the angle between opposite face slant heights, not angle AVC. Best-supported mark is 0/5, so 2/5 is unjustified credit.", "right_place": "The response gives follow-through credit on an invalid prerequisite. It awards M1 for √250 by treating 5 as 'their half-diagonal', but the student never found a diagonal; 5 is half the side. The scheme's follow-through is for 'their √200'. It then awards the angle M1 for an 'equivalent angle method using their values', which rests on the same invalid premise. It also concedes that no diagonal method is shown." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "56b7df425fbabe69b1ea", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Image_1 shows '= 2 5' and '2 5 × 1m = 2 5 m' with consistent gaps but no visible decimal point (pixel check: no stray marks). The intended 2.5 is likely but not written; the response correctly flags this. Under a decimal-intent reading a higher mark (up to 3/3) would be defensible, so the mark is genuinely ambiguous.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response grades the work actually written. It credits the pairing of 25 kg cement with 75 kg sand as a single-ingredient proportional process. It correctly notes that no length is found from the 100 kg of sand. It flags the genuine reading uncertainty of '2 5' versus 2.5 rather than silently repairing it. Its marks follow from that faithful reading." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "56ff3122fa81956f3173", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "A-F appear to be graphing-tool point names; including them is defensible.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "fail" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response lists most labels but leaves out x', which the student wrote beside the bottom vertex at (2,-3) next to D. Because it gives an incomplete list of the labels the student included, the answer omits required content." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "5774c34bccc56757acfd", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "\"No explicit multiplier (1.2 or 6/5) is written, so the first P1 is not awarded\" - the 100 -> 120 step of the scheme-accepted starting-value method is itself the process for a 20% increase, and the complete process (second P1) implies the first; with 25/36 supported by working the best-supported mark is 3/3, not 2/3.", "right_place": "The response recognizes the student's complete starting-value method and awards the second P1 and A1. It then withholds the first P1 because no explicit multiplier is written. This does not accept the scheme-authorized alternative route, which earns the process credit without 1.2 or 6/5. The guidance therefore misapplies the scheme's prerequisite structure to the student's actual approach." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "57b8089051ec0646f9f7", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response supplies all three required components. It gives one category, locates the error at the first entry, and explains that the missing percent sign changes the written value. It also separates this from the correct second entry. It does not add a replacement solution beyond naming the required form, and it is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "585d05fa54aabfc8f332", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict: teacher answer says correct, but the drawn image preserves orientation (looks translated, not reflected); X is nearest l in the original but X' is farthest from l in the image. 'No' is supported.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response directly answers the yes/no question about correctness of the reflection. It is clear and concise, and it neither performs the reflection nor adds unrequested explanation." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "58758ed02a6154e2ae9a", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response applies each scheme mark to the student's actual lines: the composite, 4x²−17=4x+3, the rearrangement 4x²−4x−20=0, the substitution with a=4, b=−4, c=−20, and the final answers (1±√21)/2. It neither invents nor misses an error that affects the mark." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "5b557ce98a8f244c6239", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'No working or method is shown, so the method mark ... cannot be given' / 'Mark: 1 / 2' - image_1 shows the correct answer 0.76 alone; the question does not demand working, so under GCSE convention a correct answer implies the method mark (answer-only is not automatically limited to the A mark). Best-supported mark is 2/2; awarding the answer mark while denying its method is not defensible.", "right_place": "It assesses the requested probability task against the student's actual work: a lone '0.76' and an unrelated stray line. It invents no working and no error. Withholding the method mark for unshown work is a mark-correctness question, not a wrong target." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "5bbebcbee767646d1a39", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'The only visible step in the scratchwork, \"(9 + 3) × 2 = 24\", is a correct computation': image_1 shows 11 under the bracketed 9+3 and the result written as 22, not 24; the response repairs the student's work.", "correct": "'the written arithmetic therefore contains no mistake' and 'Category: 4. Procedural Error': the visible 9 + 3 = 11 (giving 22) is an arithmetic error, so the no-mistake assessment and the procedural category are not defensible.", "right_place": "Misses the earliest supported error (9+3 = 11 in the perimeter step, per expert explanation) and instead claims the error cannot be localized and attributes it to an incomplete procedure.", "right_amount": "The response gives a category and an explanation. It states a localization limitation, which the task allows, and describes the supported inconsistency between the visible work and the answer 81. It flags the 9×9 possibility as unconfirmed. It is verbose and hedged but understandable. Its correct chain (24 ÷ 4 = 6, 6 × 6 = 36) is a brief supporting calculation. Its claim that the arithmetic is correct is a correctness issue, not a separate Q4 defect." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "5c976e9778e21b9a434a", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Largely restates the task, but accurately describes the visible approach.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The answer names the strategy as rotating around point Z, which directly answers the teacher's question. It stays within scope, with no extra explanation or solution, and is clearly worded." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "5db8e9aa32ea805d1fd4", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "fail" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"Unclear; shading ambiguous.\" The model is messy but red vertical shading clearly fills the left 3 of the 5 columns (blue horizontal shading marks the 2/3); the claimed ambiguity is not supported by the image.", "right_amount": "The teacher asked how the student represented 3/5. The image visibly shows red shading on the left portion of the grid and blue shading over part of it, so some representation can be described. The response gives only a generic non-answer. It does not say which part of the shading or grid is unclear, and it reports nothing supportable about the representation. That is insufficient help, not a specific evidence limitation." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "5ee7953b4cfed1f9492d", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Mark 3/3 itself is the best-supported award (correct answer with working; A1 implies the rationalising M1).", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'the intermediate line (3²×(√3)²)⁵ is not equivalent to (3√3)⁵ as written' - image_2's middle line reads roughly (3^? × (3^{·?} )^5 with unclear exponents and no √ symbol; the response asserts a specific reading and an error with unsupported certainty. It also reports the denominator as 1/(2187√3) without noting that the written radicand resembles 2 (silent repair).", "right_place": "The student's denominator reads 1/(2187√2), with a radicand that looks like 2. The response silently repairs this to 1/(2187√3). It then credits a rationalisation process 'shown' from the repaired expression, but the student wrote only a direct jump to √3/6561. The mark therefore rests on altered work rather than the actual work." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "60332f1c6c3c2ff17eee", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Q2 passed because 2×2≠7 is true as stated; the defect is the misreading.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'2×2=7' invents an equals sign: the bottom line reads '2×27' (or '2×2 7') with no '=' written.", "right_place": "Targets only the last line and misses the earliest issue: the work (29, 20+9, 2×27) never checks 93÷7 with quotient×divisor+remainder at all; the first line 29 is already unrelated to the required check.", "right_amount": "The response gives a specific, clearly worded error naming a particular written line. It adds no solution or hint and uses respectful language. Whether this is the right or earliest error, and whether \"2×27\" is transcribed accurately, belongs to accuracy and relevance, not a separate Q4 defect." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "609bff5eb655aa984926", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response states specifically that the right-hand triangle was cut off. This matches the student's vertical line at the right end of the drawn parallelogram. It is concise, within scope and clear." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "620321fd144c3a431b70", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines. Minor: '2.4 × 1.2' is not visible (left column is 24 × 1.2 with partial products 48, 24, 288/28.8); not material.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response gives the category, locates the first-step multiplication by 1.2 and 0.8, and explains why dividing is needed. It lists the downstream subtraction and decimal-scale entries as consequences. The parenthetical '2.4 × 1.2' description is somewhat muddled, but the diagnosis remains understandable, so this is not a material clarity failure. Beyond naming the divisions, it gives no full replacement solution, and the language is respectful. Its greater length is not a defect because the task sets no fixed limit." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "634f8a74f44a65024ca1", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response supplies all three required parts. It gives a single category, names the error location (the '×1.2' and '×0.8' setup), and explains the mismatch: 240 is the selling price, so the costs must be found by dividing. It also notes the downstream subtraction. Naming division by 1.2 and 0.8 is a short necessary correction, not a full replacement solution. The response is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "645a9f85e6a3322af3ef", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading and trailing blank lines. Unreduced radical (√150 = 5√6) diagnosis matches expert; category 1 defensible.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'in the final line, where the student writes m=±3√150/50': image_1 shows 'm² = 27/50 = ±3√150/50'; there is no 'm =' — the response invents/repairs the writing, hiding the student's invalid equation of m² with its root (it then asserts 'the displayed algebra contains no invalid transformation').", "right_amount": "It provides a category, locates the final line, and explains the defect as an unreduced radical. It includes only a short necessary supporting calculation (√150=5√6) and flags the conflict that the value is equivalent to the correct one. It does not give a full replacement solution and is clear. Whether this is the right diagnosis is outside Q4." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "64e93ef916ff01dd82bf", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Student's part C check shows 7 x 2 = 14 and 1 - 1 = 0 rather than 14 x 4 + 0 = 56. 'Wrong numbers' is accurate but vague (does not name 14 x 4 or the subtraction). Reference conflict: teacher answer concerns not showing 56 distributed into 4 groups, which does not match the highlighted part C work.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The teacher asks what errors the student makes. This response gives a direct diagnosis: the Part C check is built on the wrong numbers (7 and 2 rather than the quotient and divisor). It does not say which numbers are wrong, but the diagnosis is still usable and clear. It is concise, respectful and adds no solution or hint." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "669d3ffd826a6034cfd3", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "A1 is genuinely ambiguous here (values identifiable but final form has exponent 4); 2/2 and 1/2 are both defensible if justified.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "fail" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "Omission: \"The values A=56 and B=4 are clearly identified in the final expression\" - the final line in image_1 is 56 - (t-4)^4 (exponent clearly 4, not 2) and line 2 (40 + (t-4)^2) is not equivalent; the justification never mentions this defect, which is the material issue for the A1 decision, so the credit justification is insufficient.", "right_place": "The response grades the final line as if it were a clean A−(t−B)² result. The written line shows a raised exponent that looks like 4 and an unclear operator after 56. The task requires assessing the actual work and identifying reading uncertainty, so awarding A1 on 'clearly identified' values amounts to grading silently repaired work." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "67db2efe41982fff16ce", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Chronology of the top-right line is not established by its position; the response assumes it was written after the derivation.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'The equation (6m+7)x = 0 is not a valid consequence of the original equation and does not encode the 2m+9n = 0 requirement': (6m+7)x = 0 is exactly what (6m+7)x = 2m+9n becomes when the required condition 2m+9n = 0 is imposed, so it does encode that requirement and follows validly under it. The condition actually missing is 6m+7 = 0 (m = n = 0 gives 7x = 0, a unique solution). The explanation names the wrong missing condition.", "right_amount": "The response supplies a valid category, quotes the step it identifies as the error and explains the claimed invalid transformation. It explicitly labels the submitted 0, 0 as a downstream consequence and notes the work is missing. It states the two conditions from the reference but does not solve them, so it stays within scope. The text is concise, clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "6a4fe660af75684a6af3", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The answer says the student draws rotated triangles around Z, which addresses the strategy question. It adds no solution steps, coordinates or unrequested hints, and it is concise and clear." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "6af0fd737adcb076c67e", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Locates the line-1 s²t prefactor as the earliest error. Does not also mention the ×(2/5)t divisor handling in the same step, which is not required. Procedural vs Conceptual (expert) boundary is open.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response provides a single category and locates the extra s²t factor outside the first radical. It explains the mismatch with a short supporting calculation (s² cancels, t³/t=t²), which is allowed. It treats the later s²t² prefactor as carried-forward error and flags that the reported final answer is not visible. It is concise and stays in scope." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "6d3bc219236acda19a0d", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines. The minus in the scratch radicand is small but visible on zoom; 'clearly present' slightly overstated.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response gives all three required parts: a category, an error location (the second root's radicand in the final answer) and a cause (the missing minus sign, with the wrong x₂ as its consequence). It does not give a replacement solution, and its language is clear and respectful. Its claim that the scratchwork 'clearly' shows the minus sign is a faithfulness question, not a Q4 sufficiency or scope defect." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "70bbc52b64769f419b2d", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response assesses the student's actual answer, \"7 people\", against the scheme's value of 7 for n(T ∪ S). Its supporting count of the seven names inside the circles matches the diagram. Ian, Holly and Jo lie outside both circles and are correctly excluded." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "70d43a28e2a3eb9831e9", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "'Wrong numbers' is vague but supported (numbers unrelated to checking 93÷7).", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "fail" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'false equation' asserts an equation that is not visible: the lines are '29', '20+9' (a true decomposition) and '2×27', with no '=' written.", "right_amount": "The response is too vague to answer the error question. It does not say which numbers are wrong or which written line is the false equation, although the work contains three lines (29, 20+9, 2×27). The teacher therefore cannot tell what error is being identified, which makes the assistance materially unclear and insufficient." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "714b92e106ce2c91df05", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines. Infers a learner belief ('flawed understanding...') without written evidence.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'the bracket under 9＋3 indicates the partial sum 12), which evaluates to 24 m': image_1 shows '11' written under the bracket and '= 22' after '×2'; the response silently repairs the student's 11 and 22 to 12 and 24.", "correct": "'That step is valid, so the originating error is not in the perimeter computation' and 'Category: 3. Conceptual Knowledge Error' (using 9 as the side): the visible step 9+3 = 11 is an arithmetic error (should be 12), a Calculation error; the conceptual diagnosis rests on an unwritten step inferred from 81.", "right_place": "Misses the earliest supported error, 9 + 3 written as 11 (then 11×2 = 22), identified in the expert explanation; instead diagnoses an unwritten later step inferred from the final answer.", "right_amount": "Both required fields are present. The explanation names a located step (using 9 as the square's side) and explains the mismatch. It also states an evidence limitation. Its correct path (24÷4=6, 6×6=36) is a short supporting calculation, not a full replacement solution. Its misreading of the written 11/22 as 12/24 is a correctness/relevance issue, not a separate Q4 sufficiency, scope or clarity defect." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "721f1a4e287415b1ac89", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Calculation / Attention & Detail / Transcription boundary for an unmotivated sign flip on a carried-over term is open; Calculation defensible.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "It supplies all required parts. It gives one category, quotes the second line as the earliest error, and explains that +2x^2 has no like term and should be carried over unchanged. It also traces the error into the final answer. The only arithmetic it adds is the brief 2x⁴ + 13x⁴ = 15x⁴ check, which is within scope. The wording is clear and appropriate." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "7306aab5397205829b62", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "'plotted too low' is visually accurate (point at ~16 visitors, ~1.33 h, below the 28 target); whether a sketch deviation counts as an error is a tolerance judgment, and the reference says no error. Uncertain.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response gives a specific, clear error statement: which point is affected and in what direction it is misplaced. Citing (1.25, 28) only restates the problem's given V(1.25) = 28 to name the point. It does not solve the problem or add a replacement graph. One short sentence is acceptable under the soft length preference." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "74e21162361c4b571989", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Defensible: the student's work is built on 29 (29, 20+9) rather than the dividend 93 or a quotient/divisor check; 'instead of 93' slightly implies a substitution the image cannot confirm. Uncertain.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response directly states a specific error that a teacher can act on: the student works with 29 rather than the problem's 93. It stays within scope by not giving the quotient, the remainder or the correct check. It is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "752c1240204507b3c573", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "'to estimate' gives the purpose of rounding (problem asks to estimate the product) rather than why 20 specifically (nearest ten); defensible but less informative than the reference.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response gives the rounded value (20) and a purpose-based reason ('to estimate'). That reason fits the problem's instruction to estimate the product, so both requested parts are present. It adds no extra solution work and the wording is clear." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "756546d8a7737019b8b0", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Same lenient-vs-strict boundary as response 1.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "\"Award the method mark for subtracting 120° and dividing by the correct 12 ratio parts, despite using an incorrect total of 360°\" - the scheme's second mark is for a correct method to find the sum of the remaining angles ((540-120)/12 or 12x = 420); 360 - 120 = 240 is not that, and no follow-through from a wrong angle sum is authorized, so the credit is unjustified. Best-supported mark is 0/4.", "right_place": "The response targets the actual work: subtracting 120 from 360, dividing by 12, and obtaining 40°, 100° and 60°. It correctly observes that the scheme does not authorize follow-through for the accuracy marks. Whether the method mark should be awarded with 360 is a mark-correctness question; the response's relevance to the student's work and the scheme is intact." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "757963dd545e69ffcaa4", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response addresses the requested assessment of the student's 7/10 against the scheme value of 7. It gives a hedged reading ('appears to be') of 7/10 as a proportion of the 10 students, which the diagram supports. It withholds the mark because 7/10 is not equivalent to 7. It invents no work and targets nothing outside the task." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "772caffb5927d92d8ea0", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Calls the decimal point after the first 1 in image_1 'faint/ambiguous'; it is actually as visible as the dots in 1.5 and 6.3, but the response flags the image/typed-answer conflict rather than misattributing writing, so not consequential.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response gives all three required components. It names one category, locates the first term, and explains the decimal-value change. It also flags the image versus typed-answer conflict. It stays within scope: the correct sum is quoted only as a brief comparison, with no replacement solution. The language is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "78e24f9beae61dfea465", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'the left one' misidentifies the shape: the leftmost drawing is a (hand-drawn) square/rectangle with a diagonal, i.e. right angles; the non-right-angled quadrilateral is the rightmost parallelogram.", "correct": "Attributes non-right angles to the wrong quadrilateral.", "right_place": "Points the teacher to the wrong figure.", "right_amount": "The response directly answers yes and names a shape briefly, which is permitted context. Naming the left figure, which appears rectangular, is a correctness matter, not a separate Q4 defect. The wording is clear, respectful and does not solve the problem." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "7b5365926c3b622c9160", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'bottom rectangle is halves' misreads the drawing: the bottom strip has two vertical dividers forming three shaded parts (with the one shaded top part this makes 4 thirds = 4/3, as written below).", "correct": "'No' is unsupported; both rectangles are partitioned into three parts as an estimate.", "right_place": "Bases the answer on an invented error (halves) rather than the actual partitions.", "right_amount": "The response answers the question directly and names which rectangle fails to show thirds. It stays within scope, with no solving or unrequested hints, and is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "7bdbf00b63970d744c32", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leaning fail: the reading 3 1/3 is more plausible and the reference supports it.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "unverifiable", "correct": "unverifiable", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'the 5-tablespoon row doesn't' depends on reading the 5-row entry as 3 1/5; the denominator is a tiny blurry glyph that is most plausibly 3 (giving 3 1/3 = 10/3, proportional) and the teacher reference says all values maintain the ratio. Asserted with certainty without noting the ambiguity.", "correct": "'No' is correct only if the entry is 3 1/5; if 3 1/3 (likeliest reading, matches reference) the 5 row is proportional and the verdict is wrong. Image resolution prevents a firm decision.", "right_amount": "The response answers the yes/no question and names the specific row it claims is wrong, without solving the problem or giving correct values. The image shows 5 → 3⅓, which is consistent with 3:2, so the claim is likely wrong. Under the boundary rule, that is a correctness issue rather than a separate Q4 defect. No sufficiency, scope, clarity or respect defect is present." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "7c2c98a9007f6edb8904", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Category boundary: the erroneous step (opposite of 4-5√3 given as 4+5√3) is unwritten, so Calculation (sign slip) vs Conceptual (expert's choice) cannot be settled from the work; both judged defensible.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response supplies all three required components. It gives a single category. It locates the error in the unwritten final opposite-number step that yields 4 + 5√3, after the correct written lines. It explains the mismatch: only the radical term's sign was changed. Showing −4 + 5√3 is a short supporting correction, not a full replacement solution. The language is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "7c762708b400c8a8bedb", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines. Category 7 vs 5 is a soft boundary for a dropped symbol.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'In the scratchwork the student writes the quadratic formula as (−b ± √(b² 4ac))/2a ... with the subtraction sign omitted' and 'the left part of the top line, \"b² 4ac\", also lacks the operator': on image_1 a short minus stroke is visible after b² both in the radicand and in the top-left 'b² - 4ac'; the response misreads the scratchwork as missing the sign.", "right_place": "'The first genuinely erroneous mathematical expression is that radicand ... propagates into the final x₂': the scratchwork formula is correct; the supported error is only in the submitted x₂, where '√(b^24ac)' drops the minus (expert: careless transcription). The response invents an earlier scratchwork error.", "right_amount": "The response supplies a category, locates the error in the scratchwork radicand '(−b ± √(b² 4ac))/2a' and explains the cause (an omitted operator). It traces the error to the final x₂ and explicitly notes the reading uncertainty about the top line. It stays within diagnostic scope, and the explanation is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "7c85a21defb8ed325a56", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Answer-only marking convention is a boundary; I judge 5/5 best supported, and 1/5 the least coherent option either way.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "\"The final answer 50.5 is correct, earning the final A1 ... so no method marks are awarded\" - awarding only the dependent final A1 while withholding every M mark is internally inconsistent (A marks depend on their method marks), and a correct, non-guessable 1 d.p. answer of 50.5 with no contradictory working implies the method (scheme: VA 'may be implied by subsequent working'); answer-only is not automatically limited to 1 mark. 1/5 is not a defensible mark; 5/5 is best supported.", "right_place": "It assesses the actual submission against the supplied scheme: scattered figures and a final answer of 50.5. It reads the visible figures faithfully, notes they are unclear, and gives a scheme-based reason for withholding the method marks. It invents no error and builds no guidance on fabricated working. Whether 1/5 is the right integer is a correctness matter, not a relevance failure." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "7ce64ad797ee6e201f60", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response addresses each scheme step against the student's actual work. It notes the apparent omission of the 5, the −23 in place of −17, and that no three-term quadratic is set to zero. It explicitly considers follow-through for M3, and it correctly notes the missing formula substitution and final answers." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "7e95de29a00a91919c60", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Category boundary Attention & Detail vs Conceptual (expert: misunderstanding of 'two decimal places') is open; both defensible.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response gives a category, locates the error at the final rounding to 1.7 and explains the mismatch with the two-decimal-place requirement. It also flags that the lower scratch entries are hard to read. The figure 1.67 comes from the supplied reference, so this is not a prohibited disclosure. Whether the diagnosis is correct is outside Q4. The response is somewhat long, but it stays clear and within scope." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "7eb439b0c01187417e92", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Possible alternative reading: the student did not extend the tape diagram with squares/batches. That could be a valid remark about representation, but the question asks whether the diagram shows 9 and 6 cups, which it does. Wording 'no cups' is materially unclear.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"numbers only, no cups\": the student wrote 'cups' after both values ('9 cups', '6 cups') and in both row labels ('red paint cups', 'green paint cups'); the claim misreads the work (if it means no drawn cup squares, it is unclear).", "correct": "\"No\": the diagram does show 9 cups of red and 6 cups of green for 3 batches (3 x 3 = 9, 3 x 2 = 6), so the negative judgement on the asked quantities is not defensible.", "right_amount": "It gives a direct answer and a short basis, so the required function is present. Its claim of 'no cups' is contestable, since the student wrote 'cups', but it can be read as no cup-square tape diagram. Any inaccuracy belongs to correctness, not to a separate completeness, scope, clarity or respect defect. It adds no solution or hint." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "7f277228dc6f5395b56f", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response addresses the actual written work. It credits the visible 1/(3√3)^5 and the final √3/6561. It explicitly notes that the intermediate radicand resembles 2 rather than 3, so it does not repair the work. Basing the second M1 on the correct start and final answer is an assessment judgement about the real work." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "826747dade9b6698004b", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Accurately names the main check error (7 x 2 = 14 written instead of quotient x divisor 14 x 4); does not mention the 1 - 1 = 0 subtraction in place of adding the remainder. Teacher reference addresses a different (part A) issue.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "This response identifies a specific error matching the visible work (7×2 = 14). The contrast with 14×4 is a short necessary correction, which is allowed, not a full replacement solution. It is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "8344adf4045b9fc895e3", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response states the rounded value (20) and gives a rounding rationale ('to nearest ten'). It fulfils both parts of the question within scope and stays concise." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "84c593d955c2835e44f0", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "unverifiable", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'the final term appears as +(3.1), with no negative sign inside the parentheses': in image_1 the parenthesis/first stroke of the last term is an overlapping hooked mark before the 3, so whether an inner minus is present cannot be reliably decided; the response states the absence with certainty and does not note that the typed student answer has +(-3.1).", "right_place": "'The image also shows -1.6, conflicting with the supplied typed student answer -16': the response notes the -1.6 -> -16 discrepancy but does not treat it as the error, even though it is the only mismatch between the student answer -16+1.5+6.3+(-3.1) and the correct answer. It instead diagnoses an ambiguous draft sign that is correct in the final answer, so it misses the supported originating error (copying -1.6 as -16).", "right_amount": "The response provides a category, a location (the final term read as +(3.1)) and a mathematical explanation of the sign mismatch. It also explicitly flags the conflict between the image (-1.6) and the typed answer (-16). Whether its reading of the image is right is a correctness or relevance issue, not a Q4 defect. The required functions are present, concise and within scope." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "8503a91f561535ce1918", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Left column of image_1 more plausibly reads 1.00 − 0.55 = 0.45 with borrowing marks (crossed 1 -> 0, 0 -> 9, 10), i.e. 1 − (0.2+0.35); the response's '0.80 − 0.35' reading is hedged as uncertain and does not affect the 0/2 decision.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response checks the real scheme target: whether the work contains the product (1 − 0.2) × (1 − 0.05) and the answer 0.76. Its reading of the left column as 0.80 − 0.35 is likely wrong; the column looks like 1.00 − 0.55 with borrowing marks. It does flag that reading as uncertain, and it builds no credit on it. Its 0 / 2 assessment rests on the absence of the required product and on the written answer 0.45." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "86900098d2cfeb3c2b70", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response applies the scheme's starting-value alternative to award both P1 marks, then awards A1 for 25/36. It matches the actual work. It flags the unclear top line and the written numerator 1 without inventing an error. It also notes that the later 100/144 simplification supports credit." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "89f12db7305980680c0d", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "unverifiable", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'the product beneath 220 appears to be written as 168': in image_1 the middle digit of the product is a loosely formed loop-and-stem (it could be 6 or 9). The remainder written beneath it (…20, consistent with 22 and a brought-down 0) fits 220 − 198 = 22, not 220 − 168 = 52, so the 168 reading is not supported and cannot be confirmed.", "right_place": "Diagnoses only 'This multiplication error' in the long division and gives no account of the student answer 1.7. The quotient digits 1.6 are correct, and the supported error is rounding to one decimal place (1.66… -> 1.7) instead of the required two decimal places (1.67). The response misses this error that produced the wrong answer, and even a 168 product would not explain 1.7.", "right_amount": "The response supplies all three required components briefly: a category, a location (the product written beneath 220 in the long division) and the cause (33 × 6 = 198, not 168). It separates this from the later subtraction and rounding. It gives no replacement solution, and its language is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "8a5010ebe2c4b8093bd9", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines. Correctly flags the ambiguous operator/denominator in the scratch fragment.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "unverifiable", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'indicating a gap in the knowledge that an equivalent fraction must be expressed in simplest form' / '3. Conceptual Knowledge Error': the location (25/45 and 21/24 left unreduced) is correct, but the only evidence is the omitted reduction; the work cannot distinguish a knowledge gap (3) from an omitted step (4) or oversight (7), so the category rests on an inferred learner belief and the boundary is not decidable from the image.", "right_amount": "Both required fields are present. The explanation names a specific error location (the unreduced 25/45 and 21/24 given as final answers) and a cause (no reduction step). It flags that the scratchwork operator and denominator are hard to read. The reductions it shows (25/45 = 5/9, 21/24 = 7/8) are short supporting calculations, not a full replacement solution. The language is clear and respectful. Whether this diagnosis is correct is a separate criterion." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "8b6a6e9d8877a0d5635d", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Labels the scheme's marks M1-M4, which the scheme does not use; minor.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"finally 175−70=105 (M4)\" - image_2 shows '175 - 70 = 5°' double-underlined as the final answer; 105 appears only as the angle-C label at the top. The response silently repairs the student's subtraction.", "correct": "\"All four scheme points are clearly met, so full credit is awarded\" - final answer 5° is incorrect, so the final-answer mark is not earned; best-supported mark is 3/4.", "right_place": "It attributes '175−70=105' to the student. The student actually wrote '175 − 70 = 5°' as the underlined final answer. Full credit is therefore built on a repaired final line rather than the submitted work." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "8b84357dc86dcef66b0c", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines. Paraphrases the written '2x-60+x=180' as 2(x-30)+x=180 (meaning-preserving). Category 4 vs 3/7 is a soft boundary; 4 is defensible for the omitted back-substitution.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response supplies all three required components. It gives a valid category, locates the error as reporting the left case's x=80 (the vertex angle) as the base angle, and explains the mismatch and its downstream effect on \"70 or 80\". Stating that the base angle should be 50 is a short supporting calculation, not a full replacement solution. The wording is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "8c0f9e2c02e5839f1f52", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Does identify 'leaving the coefficient (6m+7) non-zero', which is the substantive defect. Chronology of the top-right line relative to the three-line derivation is not established by its position.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'This is an invalid transformation ... The right side of the rearranged equation is 2m+9n, not 0': setting 2m+9n = 0, which gives (6m+7)x = 0, is one of the two conditions required for infinitely many solutions, so it is not itself invalid. What is missing is the companion condition 6m+7 = 0. Also, 'the recorded answer m = 0, n = 0 is not obtainable from the visible work' is false: m = n = 0 satisfies the condition 2m+9n = 0 that the top-right line encodes, which is a direct route to the submitted answer (with 6m+7 = 7 ≠ 0 left unchecked).", "right_amount": "All required functions are present. The response gives one category from the list and locates a specific step (the top-right line). It explains the claimed mismatch, separates that step from the unshown derivation of 0, 0 and flags a conflict. It gives no full replacement solution: the only result disclosed is m = −7/6, a short supporting remark. Whether treating (6m+7)x = 0 as an error is correct belongs to correctness/relevance, not Q4. The wording is lengthy but clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "8c3a8578a5e4266a5e8c", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "It directly answers the targeted question and briefly specifies that the numbers are correct. It stays within scope without solving or hinting, and it is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "8d16fde24969fb9bec5e", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "It addresses the actual work against the scheme. It awards M2 because 420 and the 12 parts are shown, and treats 12x=240 as a slip of 420, which is a supported reading of the digits. It withholds M3 and M4 based on the student's actual angles 40, 60, 100 and final 80." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "8f8c99b3299a5e510d51", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Describes the clearly written trailing 'n' only as 'an unclear trailing mark', which understates it; n(T) is a plausible reading of the bracketed character.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "unverifiable", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "\"Credit is therefore awarded, with the notation and final-character reading noted as uncertainty\" - image_2 shows '= 7n'; whether the trailing n is part of the answer (7n, not 7) or a stray mark decides 1 vs 0, and the handwriting cannot settle the student's intent. The response flags this uncertainty, but its award of 1 cannot be confirmed.", "right_place": "The response explicitly acknowledges the trailing mark after 7 and flags it as a reading uncertainty rather than silently dropping it. It addresses the n(T ∪ S) target, supporting this with the union count from the diagram, and applies the scheme to that reading." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "91a4e57f3a7cd02cd524", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'Did not plot point E.' contradicts the visible 'E.' dot at about (-3,2) in the student's upper-left quadrant.", "correct": "The error claim is false; E is plotted.", "right_place": "'Did not plot point E.' is an invented error (and also differs from the teacher reference's location claim).", "right_amount": "It names a specific error tied to part C (plotting point E) in a short, clear phrase. It adds no extra solution or hints. Whether E is actually visible in the image is a correctness issue, not a Q4 completeness or scope failure." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "92caedd03ad676a05ed1", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response answers the question directly and briefly identifies which drawn quadrilateral has non-right angles. It stays within scope and is clear, with no extra solution or hints." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "9316348b5f60bc92775e", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Q2 left as pass: given its (mis)reading the internal mathematics is valid, and Transcription is a defensible category for a sign changed while copying a term between lines; the defect is the reading and the location.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'the student writes the expression as \"2x^4 - 2x^2 - 1 + 13x^4\"': in image_1 the sign before 2x^2 in the first line is a plus (a horizontal stroke crossed by a slanted vertical, formed like the '+' before 13x^4), so line 1 reads 2x^4 + 2x^2 - 1 + 13x^4. The response invents a minus sign in line 1.", "right_place": "'The earliest supported error is in the first line of the scratchwork... copied it with a minus sign': line 1 is a correct removal of the parentheses. The earliest supported error is the change from +2x^2 (line 1) to -2x^2 in line 2 (15x^4 - 2x^2 - 1). Because of the misreading, the response targets a step that is not erroneous and treats line 2 as a correct consequence.", "right_amount": "All required parts are present. It gives one category, names a specific line as the error location, explains the sign mismatch, and separates that originating error from its downstream effect on the second line. It does not supply a replacement solution, and the language is clear and respectful. Its reading of the first line as \"-2x^2\" is a faithfulness or correctness issue, not a separate Q4 sufficiency or scope defect." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "9441d5f900f40f9f0d8f", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Mark for this case is genuinely ambiguous (7 followed by a trailing n); 0 seems better supported since the stated value is 7n.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"The student's answer shows '= 7'\" - image_2 reads n(7) = 7n (or n(T) = 7n): a clearly written trailing 'n' follows the 7 and is silently dropped; the 'n(S)' reading of the left symbol is also unsupported.", "correct": "\"the scheme awards credit for the value 7 alone. Therefore the full mark is awarded\" - credit is justified on a value '7' that is not what was written; the written answer is '7n', so the award rests on a silently repaired answer rather than a defended treatment of the trailing n.", "right_place": "The student's line ends with a visible trailing 'n' ('= 7n'). The response describes the answer as '= 7' and never mentions that trailing character, so it grades silently repaired work rather than what is written. This matters because the scheme's single mark depends on whether the stated value is 7." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "9596dcf46524f4027543", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Uncertain: 4.5 Ft is the only feet-labelled result at the end of the work, so some coders may accept it as the student's stated answer.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"4.5 feet\": the student's 4.5 Ft comes from converting one bow's 1.5 yards (0.5 yd = 1.5 ft, + 3 = 4.5 ft); the student never states this as the amount Jeanne must buy. The student's total is 126.0 yards and no feet total for 84 bows is written, so the attribution is unsupported.", "right_amount": "The response gives a concise direct answer, a value and unit that appear in the student's work ('4.5 Ft'). It adds no extra solution or hint, and it is clear. Any mismatch with the student's intended final total is a correctness/relevance matter, not a separate Q4 defect." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "962f78a209bbbf2daf68", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Same answer-only boundary as response 1.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "\"The final answer 50.5 is correct and earns the terminal A1. No working is present to imply the slant-edge length, so that A1 is not awarded\" - contradictory: the correct final angle 50.5 is itself subsequent working that implies the correct VA (scheme: 'may be implied by subsequent working'), and the final A1 cannot stand alone without its method marks. 1/5 is not defensible; a correct non-guessable answer with no contradictory working supports 5/5.", "right_place": "It addresses each scheme component against what is actually on the page: scattered numbers, a faint sketch and the final answer. It explains which marks are withheld (AC, VA², Cosine Rule, slant-edge A1) and which is awarded (final A1). It invents no student error and no working. Whether the A1 for the slant edge could be implied by 50.5 is a correctness question, not wrong targeting." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "96e37efde0ef520f4d97", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Response is also unclear about what is reversed.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "fail" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"-17 and -10 reversed\": no -17 label is written on the number line; ticks are labelled 20, 10, 0, -10, -20 in correct order, and the 17 brace runs from 0 to below -10. The claimed reversal is not visible.", "correct": "\"-17 and -10 reversed\" is not a valid error: the number line order and the 7 + 17 = 24 reasoning are correct.", "right_place": "Unsupported error allegation: the work has no error (teacher reference agrees); the response diagnoses an invented one.", "right_amount": "The answer is materially unclear. It does not say what is reversed: positions on the number line, tick labels, operands in the formula, or the direction of the braces. A teacher cannot locate or understand the claimed error from this fragment, so the diagnosis function is not adequately supplied." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "98379f2ba9ac9e9c3aac", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response follows the student's actual steps: 120/360 × 2πr, then 2r + 2πr/3 with the perimeter set to 40, then the factorisation, 120/(6+2π) and 9.77. It assigns each step to the correct scheme mark." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "98a73e5b5bd6282d705d", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "'They treat AC as 10 (half 5)' is a slight over-interpretation: the student uses the half-side 5 (from the 10 cm side) and never labels anything AC; does not affect the 0/5 decision.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response grades what the student actually wrote. It reads √(5²+15²)=√250 as a slant height, not VA or AC. It also notes the doubled tan⁻¹(5/15) method giving 36.8°. Each scheme mark is mapped to that work. Reading the student as treating the base width as 10, with half 5, is supported by the top sketch and the use of 5." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "990e5226e02137bcf522", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines. Category 4 vs 7 is a soft boundary; 4 is defensible.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response gives one category and quotes the first blank “10.58”. It explains that omitting the percent sign makes it read as the plain decimal, and it states that there are no downstream consequences. It is wordier than necessary, but the extra material is explanatory rather than a prohibited replacement solution. It remains clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "99bc6ffdcdc555a48c7d", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict: teacher answer says the reflection is correct, but the student's X'Y'Z' has the same orientation as XYZ (X' apex on top, Y' left, Z' right, base roughly horizontal) - essentially a translation above the line. A reflection across the slanted line l would reverse orientation and put X' (nearest vertex to l) nearest the line. 'No' is supported.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The teacher asked a yes/no question about whether X'Y'Z' is a correct reflection. The response gives a clear direct answer. It adds no solution, extra hint or unrequested disclosure, and the tone is respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "9e62b0fcf4d5e3e645dc", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response addresses the scheme's requirement of 7 for n(T∪S). It acknowledges the student's correct working line and identifies the final written value 7/10 as the assessed answer. It stays on the actual target and the actual student work." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "9eb8be9a7a71bdc3abf4", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Student wrote 30×(x-1)/2 etc. with 15/6/10 annotations rather than 15(x-1)-6(x+2) literally; response's rendering is a meaning-preserving paraphrase. Category boundary for the sign slip is open; Calculation defensible.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response supplies category, location and cause for the +12 sign error. It separates the originating error from downstream steps. The short supporting calculation (−30+15+12=−3, x=3) contrasts the student's line with the correct one. That is a permitted brief calculation rather than a full replacement solution, and the correct answer was already supplied to the teacher. The explanation is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "9fbefbb140c106b765d2", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Category 7 vs 4/3 is a soft boundary; 7 is defensible.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response is concise but includes everything required. It gives a category, locates the error as the left case's x=80 being reported as a base angle in \"70 or 80\", and explains that x labels the vertex angle while the base angle is x−30=50. Noting that the right case's 70 is correct separates the error from the valid work. Nothing goes beyond the assistance scope." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "a43e4231ca557a0478df", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "LaTeX delimiters \\( \\) in output; minor format issue.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response identifies that the student labeled the slope as -2/1, which matches the annotation beside the line. It is concise and stays within scope. The LaTeX delimiters are a readable formatting choice, not a material clarity defect." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "a5332f3a2e75ddc17340", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'the method mark is withheld' / 'Mark: 1 / 2' - the correct answer 0.76 with no contradictory working implies the 0.8 × 0.95 method under GCSE convention when working is not required; best-supported mark is 2/2.", "right_place": "It targets the requested probability and the scheme's two marks, using the student's real work. It correctly identifies 0.76 as present and explicitly rejects the stray line as method evidence. No error or working is invented." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "a58e108bbafba4766eb3", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'4/6, 1/2, 2/3, 3/4' misreads the labels: the image shows 0 (over a faint denominator), 1/3, 2/3, 3/3; there is no 4/6, 1/2 or 3/4 on the line (4/6 appears only in the problem text).", "correct": "The reported set of labelled values is incorrect for three of four labels (1/2 and 3/4 are not on the line; the first label is 0, not 4/6).", "right_amount": "The teacher asked which values were labelled on the number line. The response gives a direct list of four values, one for each visible tick label. It adds no solution, hint or explanation outside scope, and the list is clear. Whether the transcribed values are accurate is a correctness issue, not a separate Q4 defect." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "a6ad4c132698598709bd", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'The left column shows 0.80 × 0.95' and 'the 0.8 × 0.95 setup is legible' - image_1 left column has a minus sign before the second row and borrowing marks (0, 9, 1 above a crossed 1.00), giving 1.00 − 0.55 = 0.45, consistent with the right column 0.2 + 0.35 = 0.55. No × 0.95 product is written; the response invents the scheme's method with unsupported certainty.", "correct": "'the method mark is awarded' / 'Mark: 1 / 2' - the student's method is 1 − (0.2 + 0.35), not (1 − 0.2) × (1 − 0.05), so the M1 is unjustified; best-supported mark is 0/2. (Also 0.8 × 0.95 = 0.76, which could not yield 0.45.)", "right_place": "The response awards the method mark for '0.80 × 0.95', which does not appear in the student's work. The left column shows a minus sign and a crossed-out borrowing digit, consistent with 1.00 − 0.55 = 0.45. There is no multiplication by 0.95. The grading therefore credits invented work rather than the student's actual progress." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "a8686e413c0f2b92a02f", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response addresses the actual work: 120% for 2022, 140 instead of 144 for 2023, and the boxed 5/7. It notes a reading uncertainty about the denominator. It does not invent work." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "aafa1b083796819cfe23", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "This minimal answer still supplies the required content: the student wrote -2/1 to show the slope. It is clear, within scope and has no extraneous solving." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "ab807e7acb5f2cd5ad29", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response provides the category, the location (the '5' under the six-mark line) and the cause (gaps counted instead of 6 + 1 = 7 segments). It treats the multiplication and the conversion to 6;25 as downstream consequences. It also notes that the right-hand marks are slightly hard to read. The response is longer than the others, but it stays within scope, adds no full replacement solution and remains clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "acaf9eabb33dd582e640", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response targets the scheme's M1 and A1 and ties both to the student's actual lines. It credits the visible (t−4)², which the scheme allows as sight of (t−4)². It withholds A1 because the student never states A = 56 and B = 4, and the work ends at (t−4)²−56 = A − (t−B)(t+B). It invents no error." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "ad0b094f7ff4a1115e89", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Possible reference conflict: teacher says no error, but the column placement suggests a two-place shift.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "unverifiable", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "\"There is no error.\": the written 59.000 is correct and matches the teacher reference, but the chart's column lines place the lower 5 in hundreds and 9 in tens (a two-place shift for a divide-by-1,000), so whether the work is error-free cannot be settled from the skewed photo.", "right_amount": "The response directly answers the teacher's question with an explicit no-error statement, using the form the task allows. It contains no prohibited extra solution or hint, and it is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "ad507de51e2c0938d1cb", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "The '20' in the yellow column is written somewhat like '70' but the x4 annotation and 24 confirm 20.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"Row 3 red value wrong\" is not grounded in the image: the red column reads 6, 12, 24, 3, all consistent with the yellow column 5, 10, 20, 2 1/2 (x2, x4, x1/2).", "correct": "\"Row 3 red value wrong\": whichever row is meant (24 for 20 yellow, or 3 for 2 1/2 yellow), the value preserves the 5:6 ratio; the marking decision is incorrect.", "right_place": "Unsupported error allegation: the work has no error (teacher reference agrees), so the response targets an invented error.", "right_amount": "The response does the required job: it names a specific error location in the student's table. It is concise, gives no replacement solution or hints, and is respectful. The claim appears substantively wrong, since the visible values 20 and 24 (×4) are proportional to 5 and 6. Under the boundary rule, that is a correctness issue, not a separate Q4 sufficiency, scope or clarity defect." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "addb36ae07dc8332612d", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Genuinely ambiguous case: an examiner reading the gaps as decimals might award 3/3 for correct answer with supporting calculation, but the response's stated basis (comparison with 100 kg) is not in the work.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'The student shows ... that the 75 kg sand required is within the 100 kg available' - image_1 never mentions 100 kg or any comparison; only '25kg cement + 75kg sand = 2 5' and '2 5 × 1m = 2 5 m' are written. Also asserts '2.5 m' though no decimal point is visible (silent repair, not flagged).", "correct": "'a complete process using both ingredients (P1, P1)' / 'Mark: 3 / 3' - the second P1 requires finding both possible lengths (e.g. 100 ÷ 30 = 3.33) or an equivalent comparison with the sand available; no such process is written, so the justification for full marks rests on invented work. The A1 also depends on the unflagged 2.5 reading.", "right_place": "The response credits a comparison with the 100 kg available and 'a complete process using both ingredients'. Neither appears in the student's work: there is no 100 ÷ 30 or other length from the sand, and no written comparison with 100 kg. It also reads '2 5' as 2.5 m without noting the missing decimal point. Full marks are therefore built on invented and repaired work." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "ae2ea266171341d0f27d", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response grades the student's actual written answer, 7/10, against the scheme's single criterion of 7. It notes that the numerator correctly counts the union (Dan, Ann, Eva, Chloe, Gus, Finn, Ben). It withholds the mark because n(T∪S) asks for a count, not a proportion. It invents no error and does not repair the work." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "aecb71b2bf800905fcce", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Calculation vs Attention & Detail boundary for an omitted fraction reduction is open; both defensible.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "Category and explanation are both supplied. It locates a specific step: the final circled x > 5/70 after (5/10)×(1/7). It explains the mismatch as an omitted reduction to 1/14. It also notes the numerical equivalence, which addresses the conflict with the reference. It confirms rather than redoes earlier steps, so it stays within scope. The wording is clear and respectful. Whether this counts as a genuine error is a correctness or relevance question, not a Q4 defect." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "af2d9742d13d4596ce7d", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Some ambiguity: a strict reading of 'complete process' could withhold M2, but then A1 would also be questionable.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'M2 is withheld as the rationalisation process (multiplying by √3/√3) is not shown' while 'A1 for the correct final answer √3/6561' - image_2 shows 1/(2187√[3]) = √3/6561, a correct rationalised result from their denominator; the correct answer with this working implies the rationalising method, and awarding the A1 while withholding the method mark it depends on is inconsistent with GCSE M/A dependency. Best-supported mark is 3/3.", "right_place": "The response addresses the actual student work. It credits L = 3√3 and 1/(3√3)^5, and it notes that no rationalisation step (multiplying by √3/√3) is shown, which matches the image. It flags the unclear middle line instead of inventing content. Whether withholding that M1 while awarding A1 is scheme-consistent is a correctness matter, not a wrong target." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "af79ae7a0a134774216e", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'Into three vertical strips' is not what is drawn: the student's parallelogram has a single vertical cut near the right end forming a right triangle, with an arrow moving it to the left; the separate grid drawing above has four bold column strips, not three, and is not the decomposition.", "correct": "Describes the wrong decomposition (three strips) instead of one vertical cut producing a triangle and a trapezoid.", "right_place": "Answers about an invented decomposition rather than the student's actual cut-and-move of the right triangle.", "right_amount": "The response gives a direct, clear answer about how the parallelogram was decomposed. It stays within scope: no solution, no hint and no extra explanation. The drawing shows one vertical cut off the right-hand triangle, not three strips, but that is a correctness issue. Under the boundary rule, an incorrect claim alone is not a separate Q4 defect, and no sufficiency, clarity or respect problem is present." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "affd7e7bd97ad1c718df", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "It addresses each scheme mark using the actual work. M1 is given for 3×180=540 and M2 for 540−120=420 with 2+2+3+5=12. It flags the reading '240=12x' as an appearance-based reading. It explains that 40, 60, 100 and 120−40=80 earn no accuracy marks, without inventing follow-through." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "b2f01760a6b755167c96", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Category boundary open; Problem Comprehension defensible for not registering the required unit.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "Both fields are supplied. The response locates the mismatch in how the result is expressed, leaving the depth in km, and explains the missing ×1000 conversion. It treats the factor-of-1000 discrepancy as a consequence rather than an arithmetic slip. Restating the reference conversion is brief support, not a full re-solution. The response is longer than needed but remains clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "b484cb6b941f232ea778", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Category boundary Calculation vs Conceptual is genuinely open because the final step is unwritten; Conceptual matches the expert. 'a misunderstanding of the opposite-number operation' leans toward inferring a belief from one answer, but it is not framed as persistent.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response gives a category, locates the error in the final unwritten opposite-number step, and explains why 4 + 5√3 is not the additive inverse of 4 − 5√3. It notes that the written lines 1→2 are correct. The one-line −(4 − 5√3) = −4 + 5√3 is a permitted short correction. There is no extended solution, no unclear wording and no disrespectful wording. Whether the category is right is not a Q4 matter." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "b5693ebc2eb773ce255c", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines. Refers to 'scratchwork lines' though the image just shows the two answers.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "unverifiable", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'Category: 3. Conceptual Knowledge Error' for writing '10.58' without '%': location and explanation are correct, but image_1 shows only the digits with the sign omitted; it cannot establish a lack of knowledge of percentage notation versus an omission/oversight (Attention & Detail, as in the expert 'omitted the percent sign'), so the category boundary is undecidable.", "right_amount": "The response provides one category and locates the error in the first line, “10.58”. It explains that the omitted % symbol means the entry denotes a decimal rather than a percentage. It also notes that 20.08 is correct and is not a downstream consequence. Stating the correct form 10.58% is a short necessary correction, not a full replacement solution. The wording is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "b629be547361ddbd607c", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Mark 4/4 and the M1dep award are still correct; the misreading only distorts the stated basis for M1dep.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'The factorised lines appear to retain an extra r' - image_2 factorised lines read 40 = r(2 + 2π/3) and 40 = r((6+2π)/3); the π glyph has no trailing r (compare 2πr in the top lines), so no extra r is written. This is an invented error in the student's work, though the mark is unaffected.", "right_place": "The response invents an error in the factorised lines. The student wrote 40 = r(2 + 2π/3) and 40 = r((6+2π)/3), with no extra r. The student's tailed π looks the same in the later expressions 6+2π, where the response reports no extra r. The response then justifies the dependent M1 by a workaround for this non-existent defect." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "b79fb8added663eac5a9", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Matches reference; defensible since the task is a sketch and all three statements are approximately represented.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The task explicitly allows writing that there is no error. This response gives that direct answer clearly and within scope. Whether the claim is accurate is a correctness issue, not a separate completeness, scope, clarity or respect defect under the boundary rule." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "bd55f0ca41a78bb6cfe3", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response addresses the requested target, n(T∪S), and the student's actual work. It recognises the correct count of 7 in the working and the final answer written as 7/10. It then applies the one-mark scheme to that final answer. No error is invented, and no unwritten work is credited." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "bd57c3cbff62d2e6e13a", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Denominators under 0 and 1 are faint; '0/3' vs teacher's '0' is a meaning-preserving reading.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response directly lists the four labelled values the teacher asked about. It stays within the transcription scope, with no extra solution or hint. The wording is clear and concise." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "bf006ffcebafe7f2c682", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response deals with the student's actual work. It notes the absence of √200 or 14.1, and the use of half-side 5 in √(5²+15²)=√250. It also covers the doubled tan⁻¹(5/15) giving 36.8°, which is outside the accepted range. It applies each scheme mark without unauthorized follow-through and flags the unclear top sketch." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "bfbd2d4597e44e29ef69", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response addresses the requested mark decision using the student's actual work. It awards M1 for the visible (t−4)². It withholds A1 because the final line shows −56 and gives no A = 56 or B = 4. The reading uncertainty it flags concerns the ambiguous B/b in the bracketed factors, and it correctly notes that no reading changes the outcome." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "c138ea32d4601e029de7", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Category boundary Calculation vs Conceptual is genuinely open (unwritten final step); response appropriately states the localization limit.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response is concise but complete. It gives a category and confirms that the visible work −[−4+5√3] = 4−5√3 is correct. It places the error at the unseen step that produces the supplied answer and explains that the constant should be −4. It states a genuine evidence limitation: that step is not visible. No extra solution is disclosed. The wording is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "c1c60d201eb0cc89fe26", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Category boundary open; Attention & Detail matches the expert's 'did not notice' framing.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response is concise but complete. It gives a category, locates the error at submitting 2.448 in a blank asking for meters, and explains the omitted conversion (2.448 km = 2448 m). It also says the visible multiplication is not the error. Nothing outside the task's scope is added, and the explanation is clear." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "c34f6e1e1398e7721100", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Accurate but omits that the cut is vertical on the right side and moved left; acceptable at five-word preference.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response directly states the decomposition: a triangle was cut off. This matches the vertical line near the right end of the student's parallelogram. It does not name which side, but it still answers the decomposition question sufficiently, without exceeding scope or adding hints." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "c3aeb5af3c63d5685b03", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict: teacher answer says yes, but the final pair 12:16 breaks the 4:6 ratio.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response answers 'No' and identifies the last pair as the failing one, which corresponds to 12/16 on the student's line. The required function is fulfilled. No corrected value or extra hint is given." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "c52632d69df37df44834", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Justification likely exceeds 3 sentences (4 sentences).", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'M1 for the slant-edge method 15² + (5√2)²' and 'the slip 225 + 50 = 175' - image_2 line 2 reads 15² − (5√2)² = 175 (a clear minus sign, consistent with 225 − 50 = 175); the response silently repairs the subtraction into an addition.", "correct": "'Mark: 3 / 5' - the slant-edge M1 is unearned because the student subtracted (5√2)² from 15² (VA² should be 225 + 50 = 275), and the cosine-rule M1 is doubtful because the LHS is written 10√2 rather than (10√2)² = 200. Only the AC M1 (5√2 half-diagonal / 10√2 base) is supported, so the best-supported mark is 1/5.", "right_place": "The student wrote 15² − (5√2)² = 175, a subtraction that correctly gives 225 − 50 = 175. The response repairs this into an addition method with an arithmetic slip, then awards the slant-edge M1 for 15² + (5√2)². That method does not appear in the written work, so it grades invented work." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "c724e12ab78cab9049b6", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Expert explanation ('may not have seen ... 2 tons') also conflicts with the visible 2)3 division. Location (the final step producing 3) is acceptable.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'The visible work (add, convert to tons, stop)' and 'with no division by the truck's 2-ton capacity': image_1 top right shows a legible long division 2)3 with quotient 1. The response calls this note 'too unclear to read reliably' but then asserts with certainty that no division was performed, which omits visible writing.", "correct": "'with no division by the truck's 2-ton capacity' and 'the student failed to comprehend that the question asks for a trip count constrained by the 2-ton load': image_1 (top right) shows the long division 2)3 with quotient 1. The student did divide the 3 tons by the 2-ton capacity, so the claimed mechanism (no division, total tons taken as trips) is contradicted, and the Problem Comprehension rationale built on it is unsupported.", "right_amount": "The response supplies all required components: one category, a precise location (the final answer 3 taken from the total tonnage) and a mathematical explanation of the mismatch. Its brief correct-route note is a short supporting calculation, not a full replacement solution. It treats the small note beside 2420 as unreadable rather than as a division; that is a reading/accuracy issue, not a missing Q4 component. The language is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "c7b6b44b7982dc87ccee", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "unverifiable", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'Category: 2. Problem Comprehension Error' while stating 'The work does not show how 24 was obtained': location (24 used as base sum in 24 × 4) and the correct value 28 − 5 − 5 = 18 are right, but with the derivation of 24 unwritten in image_1 the work cannot decide between Problem Comprehension and Conceptual Knowledge (expert: not understanding perimeter = bases + 2 × leg).", "right_amount": "The response supplies all three required functions. It gives one category and locates the error at the use of 24 in '24 × 4'. It explains that the base sum should be 18 because both legs are subtracted, and it states the evidence limit on how 24 arose. It treats 48 as a downstream consequence. The only calculation is a short supporting one, not a full replacement solution. The language is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "c8305727661099228891", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'bottom has two parts' misreads the drawing: the bottom strip has two vertical dividers and three shaded parts.", "correct": "'No' is unsupported; both rectangles are partitioned into three parts as an estimate.", "right_place": "Bases the answer on an invented error (two parts).", "right_amount": "The response gives a direct answer with a short, specific reason about the bottom rectangle's partition. It does not exceed the assistance scope, and the language is clear and appropriate." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "ca88938353ed376f94aa", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines. Category 7 would be defensible for the unreduced answers too, but here it is attached to the fragment.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "'The earliest concrete, supported mismatch ... is therefore the mis-written denominator/operator in \"8/28 = 13/24\"': the response itself concedes the denominator 'may be a mis-formed 24' and the fragment 'does not clearly connect' to the answers; the final 21/24 shows 8/24 + 13/24 was added correctly, so this inconsequential, ambiguous fragment is not a supported mathematical error. The supported error, leaving 25/45 and 21/24 unreduced, is mentioned only as a note and is not the diagnosed/classified error.", "right_amount": "Both required fields are present. The explanation quotes '8/28 = 13/24', says what is wrong (the denominator should be 24 and the relation should be addition, not equality) and notes the ambiguous reading of 28. It flags that the line does not clearly connect to the written answers and comments on the unreduced answers. The phrase 'giving 21/24' is a brief supporting calculation within allowed scope. It is somewhat lengthy, but no word limit applies and it remains readable and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "caf150ac387e1c694854", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'No error.' ignores the visible paw label 24 at the fifth tick (paws line reads 4, 8, 12, 16, 24).", "correct": "'No error.' gives unjustified credit: 5 cats have 20 paws, but the student wrote 24.", "right_place": "'No error.' misses the student's actual error (24 instead of 20 on the paws line).", "right_amount": "It gives a direct, concise answer to the teacher's question and adds no solution or hint. The visible paw label of 24 where 20 is expected makes the claim likely incorrect. Under the boundary rule, that is a correctness or relevance matter rather than a separate Q4 sufficiency, scope, clarity or respect defect." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "cb877fbb9171d1898016", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Student's table shows 'red paint cups | 9 cups' and 'green paint cups | 6 cups', matching 3 x 3 and 3 x 2.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "It gives a direct yes/no answer to the teacher's targeted question about whether the diagram shows 9 cups red and 6 cups green. It does not solve the problem or add unrequested hints, and its wording is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "ccb7f6ccdf32444adf89", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Possible reference conflict: teacher says no error, but the column placement suggests a two-place shift.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "unverifiable", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "\"No error.\": the written result 5 9 . 0 0 0 (decimal after the 9) reads as 59, which is correct and matches the teacher reference; however, tracing the chart's column lines, the lower 5 sits in the hundreds column and the 9 in the tens column (arrows move each digit two columns, tt->h, t->T), so the place-value shift appears to be two places. Whether this placement counts as an error cannot be settled from the skewed photo.", "right_amount": "The teacher asked what errors the student made, or for a statement that there is none. This response gives a direct no-error answer. It does not solve the problem or add hints, and the wording is clear and respectful. Whether the answer is correct is not a Q4 matter." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "ccf2bbbe41a982d658f0", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines before Category field.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response gives the category, locates the error at the right-side vertical subtraction 74 − 9 = 66 and explains the units-digit mismatch against 65. It notes that the division is correct given 66, so 13.2 is a downstream consequence. It also flags the illegible '= 74' line as an evidence limitation. It does not give a full replacement solution and does not state x = 13." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "cd455e39aee705535434", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "'shading wrong' defensible as the resulting region is wrong (bounded by x+y=1, includes negatives), though shading direction itself is correct.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "\"Wrong diagonal line\" identifies the specific feature carrying the earliest error, the misplaced x+y line. \"Shading wrong\" is brief, but the response still supplies the core diagnosis within the five-word preference. There is no prohibited solution or disrespectful language." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "cec6c8e9530374f7293e", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'This omitted \"−2\" is the originating error; the later use of 104 ... is a downstream consequence': 47+55=102 is a valid partial step toward 47+55−2, and simply omitting −2 would leave 102, not 104. The 104 used in image_1 (102+2) cannot be a consequence of omission, so the causal explanation and the 'incomplete procedure' classification rest on a false account.", "right_place": "Locates the error at 'the first visible step — the left-hand sum \"47 + 55 = 102\"', which is correct intermediate work. The supported earliest error is the switch from 102 to 104 (the 2 added instead of subtracted) before the vertical multiplication 104×74; the response treats that as a downstream symptom.", "right_amount": "The response supplies all three required parts. It gives one category. It locates the error as the missing −2 after 47+55=102 and also discusses the later 104. It explains the mismatch against 47+55−2=100. It separates the originating error from downstream results. It does not give a full replacement solution: the 74×(47+55−2)=74×100 line is a short supporting correction. Whether its choice of originating error is right is a correctness matter, not a separate Q4 defect." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "d3ca1bc629932b13c628", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Correctly reads the started division 3 ÷ 2 with quotient 1 and states the localization limit for how 3 was reached. Logical Reasoning is defensible.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response faithfully notes the visible started division of 3 by 2 with quotient 1. It states a genuine evidence limitation: no visible step shows how the answer 3 arose. It then identifies the supported erroneous conclusion and briefly explains why 3 trips is not the minimum. This fulfils the location and cause functions within scope, concisely and respectfully." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "d46e9b37eaa409e1c939", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Answer-only convention boundary; same judgment as MED-09.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "\"The final answer 9.77 is correct, earning the A1, but ... the three M marks are withheld\" - a lone A1 without its method marks is not a coherent award; a correct, non-guessable 9.77 with no contradictory working implies the method, so 4/4 is best supported rather than 1/4.", "right_place": "The response addresses the requested target: it marks the submitted answer against the supplied scheme. It correctly treats the work as consisting only of the final value 9.77. It identifies the missing arc-length expression, perimeter equation and factorising step as absent from the work, and does not fabricate any of them." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "d506be0080c6ed94626e", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Location (final division of -6x=-3 giving -1/2) matches the image and expert. The specific mechanism 'positive 3 over -6' is only partly legible in the messy left-hand third line; not material to the diagnosis.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "Both required fields are present. The response names a specific step (the final division of −3 by −6), explains the sign mismatch and separates that step from the earlier lines and the resulting answer. Stating that (−3) ÷ (−6) = +1/2 is a short supporting calculation, not a full replacement solution. Whether the reading of the image is accurate belongs to another criterion." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "d54536086286189ec02c", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines. Correctly flags that the visible >= inequality gives x <= 43, conflicting with the written maximum 40.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "Supplies both required fields. It quotes a specific step, explains the mismatch with the \"<5\" condition and separates the originating error from its downstream effect on the lower bound. It also flags the conflict over the maximum. The corrected inequality and x > 39 are a short supporting calculation, not a full replacement solution. The language is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "d6f023f8d5a4adcb7d9f", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict: teacher answer says correct, but the drawn image preserves orientation (looks translated, not reflected). 'No' is supported.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response supplies the required direct judgment on whether the student's X'Y'Z' is a correct reflection. It has no scope overreach, no clarity defect and no disrespectful language." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "d953be679aa308975b4c", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'The answer 2.5 m is given' and '25 kg cement … = 2.5' - image_1 shows '2 5' / '2 5 m' with a gap but no decimal point; the response silently supplies the decimal point and does not flag this uncertainty, on which the A1 depends.", "correct": "'so A1 is awarded' while 'neither P1 is credited' - the response itself treats 25 kg cement with 75 kg sand (2.5 × 30) as supporting calculation; that scaling is a process for the cement-limited length (implied 25 ÷ 10), so awarding the accuracy mark 'with supporting calculations' while denying the first process mark is internally inconsistent. On the decimal-intent reading at least P1 + A1 is supported; on the literal reading A1 cannot be awarded. 1/3 as A1-only is not defensible either way.", "right_place": "The response states that 'The answer 2.5 m is given' even though the image shows '2 5' with no visible decimal point. It does not acknowledge that uncertainty, so it silently repairs the student's answer. It then awards A1 on that repaired reading while crediting no process mark. The mark therefore rests on an unresolved reading of the student's actual work." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "d9902310d82c4e33f756", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response targets the student's written calculation, 100 ÷ 40. It correctly judges that this is not a scheme process for one ingredient, so neither P1 is awarded. It ties the A1 withholding to the absence of correct supporting calculation. This addresses the real student progress against the supplied scheme." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "da512cb376b8f6669e26", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Identifies the visible earliest error (m² = 27/50 = ±3√150/50). Flags the reference conflict (3√150/50 = 3√6/10) but does not mention that the unreduced radical is the likely reason the answer was marked wrong (expert); defensible as a flagged conflict.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "It is concise and complete. It quotes the specific chained equality m²=27/50=±3√150/50 and explains that the square-root step should change the left side to m. It confirms the preceding algebra is correct and explicitly flags the conflict that the student answer is numerically correct. It gives no extra solution." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "da535e386a65af715dc1", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'4/6, 1/2' misreads the first two labels, which show 0 and 1/3 (the 1 over a faint denominator); 4/6 appears only in the problem text.", "correct": "The reported set of labelled values is incorrect for two of four labels.", "right_amount": "The response supplies a direct list of four labelled values, answering the requested target. It does not solve the problem or add unrequested content. Any transcription inaccuracy belongs to correctness, not to completeness or scope." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "dc080ef86b6c49b964e3", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines. Problem text says 'water pipe' then 'wooden strip' (translation inconsistency); not material.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response supplies all three required parts. It gives one category and locates the error at the '5' written under the six-cut diagram. It explains the cut/segment mismatch (6 cuts give 7 segments) and separates the 125 × 5 = 625 product and the 6 m 25 cm conversion as downstream consequences. It does not give a full replacement solution, and the language is clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "df893b046ed539b02b25", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Borderline: a strict reading of 'setting up a correct method' could justify withholding the second mark, but 2/4 is the better-supported award.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'M2 is withheld ... the equation is written 240=12x rather than 12x=420, so the division step is incorrect' / 'Mark: 1 / 4' - image_2 shows both 540 − 120 = 420 and 2+2+3+5 = 12 correctly, so the method of dividing the remaining 420 by 12 parts is set up; 240 is a digit-transposition copying slip of their own 420, which under usual GCSE practice costs the accuracy marks (already lost), not the method mark. Best-supported mark is 2/4.", "right_place": "It assesses the student's actual written lines against the scheme. It notes 540, 420 and 12, and that the equation is written as 240=12x. It ties x=20, the angles 40, 60, 100 and the answer 80 to the withheld marks. Withholding M2 is strict, but it rests on what is written, not an invented error." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "e2a308eb7784eda8b331", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response addresses the requested value n(T ∪ S) and the student's written \"7 people\". It confirms the answer with an accurate count of the seven names inside the two circles, consistent with the scheme's value of 7." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "e46eb3ca9b16295aba48", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response supplies the category, quotes the written step (11 beneath 9 + 3), and explains the mismatch (12, not 11). It identifies the downstream consequence (22) and notes that the visible work does not show how 81 was obtained. It is concise and clear and gives no replacement solution." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "e50bf60f89dea77590b4", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response addresses the student's actual use of 360° and the values that follow from it (20, 40°, 100°, 60). It withholds the method mark because the student did not correctly set up the remaining-angle sum. That is a supported reading of the scheme, which describes a correct method to find the sum of the remaining angles. The response stays on the requested grading task." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "e75cc1e06cd56e0271fe", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict: teacher answer says yes, but the final pair 12:16 breaks the 4:6 ratio (should be 18). 'Last value wrong' is terse but identifies it.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response gives the required answer, 'No', and locates the failure at the end of the line, which matches the final 12/16 pair. The required judgement is supplied, with only slight imprecision about which number is meant. It discloses no correction, so it stays within scope." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "e968694630cbc39e8daa", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines before Category field.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'The earliest error is the choice of the cross-comparison ... 65/143 vs 44/143 ... a valid but ineffective step' classified as '4. Procedural Error': a valid, correctly executed comparison (5/11 vs 4/13) is not a mathematical error; the category is assigned to a non-error rather than to the wrong letter C in the answer.", "right_place": "'that jump is therefore treated as an unsupported downstream consequence, not the originating error': the only supported error is the answer 'C; A' (C written as first although the work shows 4/11<5/11 and the third answer A is right). The response instead targets an invented error (an incomplete but valid bridging comparison).", "right_amount": "The response supplies the category, a precisely described location and an explanation of why that step fails to complete the ordering. The location is the 65/143 vs 44/143 bridging comparison. It separates this from the downstream answer 'C; A' and flags that the final answer contradicts the visible work. It mentions the reference's 4/13 vs 4/11 link but does not write out a full replacement solution. The explanation is long but remains clear and within scope. Whether the diagnosis is correct belongs to another criterion." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "e9d9c8b45fa3eddf7d4d", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines. Expert explanation also mentions omitting the other case, which conflicts with the student answer containing 3√3/10.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "'to obtain 50m² = 27, m² = 27/50, m = 3√150/50': image_1's last line reads 'm² = 27/50 = ±3√150/50'; no 'm =' is written, so the response silently repairs the student's invalid chained equality (and drops the ±).", "correct": "'the unsimplified radical is not the source of the error; the originating flaw is the missing second case' / '6. Logical Reasoning Error': the student's answer already contains the correct second-case value 3√3/10, so a missing case is not supported as the cause of the wrong answer; the supported defects are the invalid chain m² = 27/50 = ±3√150/50 and the unreduced radical 3√150/50 (= 3√6/10), which the response wrongly dismisses.", "right_place": "Targets an unshown case (an evidence gap in the scratchwork) rather than the visible error in the final line of image_1 (m² equated to ±3√150/50 and the radical left unreduced; expert: 'did not correctly simplify the value inside the square root').", "right_amount": "It supplies all three required components: a category, a location (the absent second case), and an explanation of why that makes the visible sequence incomplete. It also separates the originating issue from its downstream consequence. It cites the second-case equation and result from the reference only as short support, not as a full worked replacement. Whether this diagnosis is correct is a Q3 matter, not a Q4 defect." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "ea850d92bdd9afe57409", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response checks each of the five scheme points against what the student wrote. It covers the composite 4(x²−5)+3, the equation 4x²−17=4x+3, the rearrangement 4x²−4x−20=0, the substitution with a=4, b=−4, c=−20, and the final answers (1±√21)/2. All of these match the image. It invents no error and misses none that affects the mark." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "eaf6716c7e76cc9ea682", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response is concise but complete. It names a category, locates the '5' beneath the six-cut diagram and explains that five counts only the gaps while six cuts make seven segments. It identifies the segment count, not the multiplication, as the originating error. It does not disclose the full worked answer and has no clarity or respect defect." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "ebfe4c26d86c96e5b7e4", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Reference conflict: teacher says no error. Tracing the column lines, the lower 5 is in the hundreds column and 9 in the tens column (arrows span two columns from ten-thousands/thousands), so 'shifts two places, not three' is visually supported; the student's decimal point after 9 nevertheless gives 59.000. Uncertain case.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response names a specific error: the digits shift two places instead of three. That fulfils the error-diagnosis request. It does not supply the quotient or a replacement solution, and it is clear and respectful. Whether the image supports this claim, since the student's digits appear to move three columns, is a correctness/relevance question, not a separate Q4 defect." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "ec6c74ad3c6044908c54", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response grades the student's actual chain of work against each scheme mark. That chain is the arc-length expression, the factorised perimeter equation, 120/(6+2π), 9.7694 and then 9.77. It invents no error." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "ecac601f45bf9209653a", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'the final A1 is dependent on that Cosine Rule M1' - the supplied scheme does not mark the final A1 as dependent (only the A1 for VA says 'may be implied'); and 'no credit is awarded despite the correct numerical value' contradicts the GCSE convention that a correct answer with no working earns full marks when working is not demanded. Best-supported mark is 5/5, not 0/5.", "right_place": "The response stays on the requested target and the student's actual submission. It states 'only the final value 50.5°, with no working' and assesses each scheme method mark against that. Its claim that the final A1 depends on the Cosine Rule M1 is not stated in the supplied scheme, which makes it a questionable assessment claim. It is not a wrong target or an invented student error, so it belongs to correctness rather than relevance." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "edbb6298cbd17f56b808", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "The response engages with the student's actual written line, including the trailing 'n'. It bases its assessment on the scheme's requirement of 7. Whether withholding the mark for '7n' is correct belongs to correctness, not task relevance." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "ee4bd774f8282dfe4535", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Awarding the second mark for the ratio-division structure is a lenient reading; I judge it unauthorized by the supplied scheme, but this is a marking-judgment boundary.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "\"They did correctly subtract 120 and divide by the correct total of 12 ratio parts, which earns the method mark\" - the scheme's second mark requires a correct method to find the sum of the remaining angles (e.g. (540-120)/12 or 12x = 420); the student's 360 - 120 = 240 uses an incorrect angle sum, so the remaining-angle sum is not correctly set up and the scheme authorizes no follow-through from a wrong total. Best-supported mark is 0/4.", "right_place": "The response grades the student's actual written work. It reports that 360 was used instead of 540, that 120 was subtracted, and that the result was divided by 12 to give 40, 100 and 60. Awarding the method mark for (360−120)/12 is a debatable reading of the scheme, but that is a question of mark correctness. It does not misread or invent the student's work." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "eea47c8a00b3e617138e", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Justification is 2 sentences, about 60 words; within limit.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_place": "It grades the student's actual work. The 540, 420 ÷ 12 = 35, 175 and 70 lines are credited. The written underlined final line '175 − 70 = 5°' is correctly identified as not 105, so the final mark is withheld. No error is invented and none is repaired." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "eed5896e7f27b063dc7a", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "The '+' between 7 and 17 is faint at this resolution; even if read as a dash, the result 24 shows addition was performed.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"Incorrectly rewrites 7-(-17) as 7-17\": the formula reads 7-(-17) = 7+17 = 24; the operator before 17 is small/faint but has a vertical stroke and the student's result 24 confirms addition. The response asserts a misreading with unsupported certainty.", "correct": "The claimed error is not present: 7-(-17) = 7+17 = 24 is correct and matches the boxed 24 F; marking it as an error is an incorrect assessment decision.", "right_place": "Unsupported error allegation: the student's work contains no error (teacher reference agrees), so the response targets an invented error.", "right_amount": "The response gives the required function: it names a specific error at a specific step, clearly and concisely, and does not solve the problem. The image shows the student wrote 7+17, so the claim appears inaccurate, but that is a correctness issue, not a separate Q4 sufficiency, scope or clarity defect." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "ef6368fd87273d75ff7d", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines before Category field.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response supplies all three required parts. It names the category, locates the error at the vertical subtraction 74 − 9 = 66 and explains the mismatch with the correct 65. It also separates the downstream 66 ÷ 5 = 13.2 from the originating slip. The added legibility caveat is a proper uncertainty note. It does not solve for x = 13, so it stays within scope. The extra length is redundancy, not a material defect." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "efc1691dd21b006f1c93", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"L⁻⁵ = 1/(3√3)⁵ = 1/(2187√3)\" and \"the clear (3√3)⁵ form\" - image_2 shows √27 = L = 3√3, then L⁻⁵ = 1/27⁵, = 1/(3^(1/3))⁵, = 1/3^(5/3); neither 1/(3√3)⁵ nor 2187√3 is written. The response invents a correct line.", "correct": "\"earning M1 for a correct first step\" - the student's written first step 1/27⁵ omits the square root (should be 1/(√27)⁵), and the following 1/(3^(1/3))⁵ is also not equivalent to L⁻⁵; no scheme-acceptable first step is shown, so best-supported mark is 0/3, not 1/3.", "right_place": "The response grades work that the student did not write. The image shows 1/27⁵, then 1/(3^{fraction})⁵, then 1/3^{fraction}. It does not show (3√3)⁵ or 1/(2187√3). The M1 is therefore justified by invented work rather than by the student's actual progress." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "f24976064301f52f4378", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Student wrote lowercase x, y, z; the response's uppercase is a minor paraphrase. A-F appear to be graphing-tool point names; including them is defensible since they are visible.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "fail" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The teacher asked for the labels the student included. The response lists the vertex letters and x, y, z, but leaves out the primed labels x', y', z' that the student wrote by the reflected triangle. These primed labels are the image labels the problem requires, so a material part of the requested answer is missing." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "f334c5203b71af057a23", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Rightmost shape is a parallelogram with a diagonal cut (non-right angles); left and middle shapes are hand-drawn rectangles.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The teacher asked a yes/no question. A direct 'Yes' completely answers it, clearly and within scope. It adds no solution, hint or unrequested explanation." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "f48a75cdbe03a0b3ffa2", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Problem Comprehension is defensible given the open category boundary. 'read the task as \"how many blankets can be fully filled\"' is a mild, unsupported belief inference, but not framed as persistent.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "It gives both required fields. The explanation identifies the error as reporting the whole-number quotient 6 as the final answer. It explains that the 4 leftover pigs need one more blanket and states that the division itself is valid. It is a little redundant but clear. It contains only a brief supporting calculation and no full solution, and the tone is respectful. Whether its claim about how the student read the task is supported is a matter for the correctness and relevance criteria, not this one." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "f7650f1dd390c93247e6", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Same as other 'Yes' response; 5-row denominator slightly ambiguous but most plausibly 3.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "\"Yes\" directly answers the teacher's yes/no question about the student's values. It needs no further detail to be complete. It contains no out-of-scope solution or hint and is clear." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "fd32bb56404cd33fd8b5", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Student wrote 1.5 x 84 = 126.0 yards, then 126 / 3 = 42 (unlabelled) and 1.5 yd -> 4.5 Ft (per bow); no total in feet is stated (teacher reference: student did not say). The response correctly flags that 126 is labelled yards, not feet, though it does not mention the unlabelled 42.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response gives a direct value from the student's work. Its short parenthetical says that value is labeled in yards, which helps answer a question about feet. It does not solve the problem or add a hint, it is clear, and the language is respectful. Whether this is the right value is a correctness issue, not a Q4 sufficiency defect." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "fdb5772a8c7340d52e64", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Leading blank lines.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "unverifiable", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'This is a conceptual modeling error' / '3. Conceptual Knowledge Error': location and mathematics (5x+38<6x only bounds the last share below 6; should be 5x+38<6(x-1)+5) are correct, but the error is a mistranslation of the verbal condition 'less than 5 boxes', which fits Problem Comprehension (2; expert: 'misinterpreted the problem'); whether 3 is defensible is a genuine category-boundary question the scratchwork cannot settle.", "right_amount": "Gives a category and quotes the erroneous step. It explains why total < 6x expresses \"fewer than 6\" rather than \"fewer than 5\" and traces the effect to the minimum of 39. It notes that the maximum of 40 is not localized in the shown steps. The correct translation is a brief necessary correction, not a full solution. The response is a little long but clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "fe24c57968c44625fbaa", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Format: Category/Explanation block is output twice (near-duplicate), violating 'Return two fields'. Leading blank lines.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "correct": "'This reflects a misconception about the fraction-comparison strategy' / '3. Conceptual Knowledge Error': comparing 5/11 with 4/13 via 65/143 vs 44/143 is valid; nothing shows a misconception, and the claim that this 'is why the student then placed 5/11 (C) first' is unsupported (the student got the third blank A correct, consistent with a slip in writing C). Category and causal explanation are not defensible.", "right_place": "'The earliest unsupported step is the bridging comparison the student actually performed': this is not an invalid step; the identifiable error is writing C for the first blank (expert: correct relationships, wrote C by mistake). Wrong target / invented error.", "right_amount": "Each output block contains a category, a located step (the 5/11 vs 4/13 bridging comparison), an explanation and a distinction between the error and its downstream consequence (first = C). The response repeats the Category/Explanation pair a second time with essentially identical content. Because the two copies are consistent, the duplication is redundancy rather than conflicting or materially unclear assistance. The response gives no full replacement solution and uses respectful language." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "fe262e33eab11b2eba7d", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "fail", "correct": "fail", "right_place": "fail", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "reads": "\"writes L⁻⁵ = 1/(3√3)⁵\" and \"the (3√3)⁵ expression is clear\" - image_2 has L = 3√3 on line 1, but the L⁻⁵ lines read 1/27⁵, 1/(3^(1/3))⁵ and 1/3^(5/3); 1/(3√3)⁵ is never written, so this is a silent repair attributed to the student.", "correct": "\"which meets the first-step M1\" - the written 1/27⁵ and 1/(3^(1/3))⁵ are not equal to 1/(√27)⁵, so the M1 for a correct first step is not earned; best-supported mark is 0/3.", "right_place": "The response credits M1 for '(3√3)⁵', which the student did not write. The lower-left expression is (3^{fraction})⁵, and its exponent is hard to read (it could be 3/2 or another fraction). The response repairs this into a clear surd form instead of grading the actual index-form expression and its uncertainty. It also treats the clearly incorrect 1/27⁵ only as 'partly illegible'." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "fe87dfbf4017c4ad3d49", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Category boundary for the sign slip is open; Attention & Detail defensible.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response includes one category, quotes the erroneous second line, and explains the missing negative on the 2 (−6·+2 = −12). It traces the consequence through the third line, which it quotes accurately, to x=27. It explicitly labels later lines as downstream. It is somewhat long but contains no full replacement solution and no clarity or respect defect." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } }, { "action": "save-assessment", "responseId": "ffa6cf4be194ec030b18", "time": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z", "snapshot": { "assessmentLayout": "q1-q4-only-v1", "optionalNotes": "Appropriately notes the unwritten derivation of m = n = 0 and explains the mismatch (6m+7 = 7 gives 7x = 0, a unique solution). It does not link m = n = 0 to the top-right line (2m+9n = 0 satisfied), but that is not required. Expert's account (coefficient condition only) differs from the visible line, which reflects the constant-term condition only.", "componentRatings": {}, "componentScale": "component-correctness-v1", "criteria": { "reads": "pass", "correct": "pass", "right_place": "pass", "right_amount": "pass" }, "reasons": { "right_amount": "The response gives a valid category. It uses the permitted source-limitation statement: no derivation of m = n = 0 is visible, so the first erroneous step cannot be located. It then explains the supported mismatch with a short check (7x = 0 has only one solution). It does not solve for the correct m and n. The explanation is concise, clear and respectful." }, "flags": {}, "issueNotes": {}, "history": [], "deliveryStatus": "response_delivered", "completedAt": "2026-10-30T09:50:01.931403Z" } } ], "cursor": { "caseId": "DRA-25", "responseId": "ad0b094f7ff4a1115e89", "stage": 2 }, "created": "2026-10-29T14:27:56.289Z" }