Assessment Criteria
The assessment measures judgment under pressure and the ability to catch machine errors, not whether the student "solved" the scenario. Five criteria across four assessment levels. The retrospective and accountability carry the most weight.
| Criterion | Excellent | Good | Developing | Insufficient | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. The human anchor (own experience of pressure, without machine) | Tangible, honest; utilized in retrospect | Present and utilized | Superficial | Missing or written after the fact | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2. Prioritization | Clear, reasoned prioritization even with incomplete information | Prioritization present with reasoning | Inconsistent | No conscious prioritization | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3. Machine analysis | Points out precisely the hallucinated procedure and amplification of chaos | Identifies at least one instance | Mentions without analysis | Accepted the machine's output as valid | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4. Retrospect (Honest Oracle) | Shows where judgment caught a machine error; rejects ≥2 points with reasoning | Retrospect with reasoning | Superficial | No retrospect | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5. Accountability | Clear accountability: what they stand by + which decision they never delegate to a machine | Accountability present | Generally phrased | Missing — machine trusted blindly | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (Fill-in template table) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Overall Grade (Guideline)
- Excellent: 4–5 criteria excellent, nothing below "Good".
- Good: most "Good" or better, retrospect and accountability present.
- Pass: methodological locks present but shallow.
- Fail: machine output accepted as valid, no retrospect, or no accountability.
Key rule: following the machine blindly cannot receive higher than "Developing", regardless of whether the outcome was "correct". The assignment measures judgment, not luck.