{
  "schema": "wmfm-developer-scoring-export",
  "schemaVersion": "1.1.0",
  "createdAt": "2026-05-08 14:42:16.621521",
  "purpose": "developer scoring and grading diagnostics",
  "method": "deterministic",
  "appState": {
    "modelClass": "lm",
    "modelType": "lm",
    "hasFactorPredictors": true,
    "hasInteractionTerms": false,
    "formula": "Exam ~ Gender",
    "exampleName": "test-SG-3",
    "package": null,
    "researchQuestion": "Do average final exam marks differ by gender in this course example?"
  },
  "current": {
    "explanation": "Do average final exam marks differ by gender in this course example? The model shows that the mean final exam mark is about 55 for female students (95% confidence interval 50 to 59) and about 51 for male students (95% confidence interval 46 to 55). Because these intervals overlap and the evidence for a difference is weak, we cannot say there is a clear difference in average marks between genders. On average, female students score a few points higher, but the data do not provide strong support for a definite gender gap.",
    "grade": {
      "class": ["wmfmGrade", "list"],
      "scoreScale": 10,
      "scored": true,
      "method": "deterministic",
      "summary": [
        {
          "method": "deterministic",
          "overallScore": 100,
          "mark": 10,
          "scoreScale": 10,
          "scored": true
        }
      ],
      "metrics": [
        {
          "label": "Overall score",
          "studentValue": 100,
          "maxValue": 100,
          "marksLost": 0,
          "status": "scored",
          "confidence": "high",
          "evidenceStrength": 1,
          "reason": "The explanation met all applicable deterministic rubric criteria."
        },
        {
          "label": "Factual score",
          "studentValue": 2,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "marksLost": 0,
          "status": "scored",
          "confidence": "high",
          "evidenceStrength": 1,
          "reason": "The explanation stayed close to the fitted model facts."
        },
        {
          "label": "Inference score",
          "studentValue": 2,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "marksLost": 0,
          "status": "scored",
          "confidence": "high",
          "evidenceStrength": 1,
          "reason": "The explanation used an appropriate inferential tone."
        },
        {
          "label": "Completeness score",
          "studentValue": 2,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "marksLost": 0,
          "status": "scored",
          "confidence": "high",
          "evidenceStrength": 1,
          "reason": "The explanation covered the main parts of the model story."
        },
        {
          "label": "Clarity score",
          "studentValue": 2,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "marksLost": 0,
          "status": "scored",
          "confidence": "high",
          "evidenceStrength": 1,
          "reason": "The explanation was generally clear and readable."
        },
        {
          "label": "Calibration score",
          "studentValue": 2,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "marksLost": 0,
          "status": "scored",
          "confidence": "high",
          "evidenceStrength": 1,
          "reason": "The explanation kept its claims reasonably well calibrated."
        },
        {
          "label": "Effect direction correct",
          "studentValue": 2,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "marksLost": 0,
          "status": "scored",
          "confidence": "high",
          "evidenceStrength": 1,
          "reason": "The direction of the fitted effect was described correctly."
        },
        {
          "label": "Effect scale appropriate",
          "studentValue": 2,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "marksLost": 0,
          "status": "scored",
          "confidence": "high",
          "evidenceStrength": 1,
          "reason": "The effect was described on an appropriate scale."
        },
        {
          "label": "Reference group handled correctly",
          "studentValue": 2,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "marksLost": 0,
          "status": "scored",
          "confidence": "high",
          "evidenceStrength": 1,
          "reason": "Baseline or reference-group information was handled appropriately."
        },
        {
          "label": "Interaction coverage adequate",
          "studentValue": null,
          "maxValue": 0,
          "marksLost": 0,
          "status": "not_applicable",
          "confidence": "not_applicable",
          "evidenceStrength": null,
          "reason": "Interaction coverage adequate was not applicable to this model."
        },
        {
          "label": "Interaction substance correct",
          "studentValue": null,
          "maxValue": 0,
          "marksLost": 0,
          "status": "not_applicable",
          "confidence": "not_applicable",
          "evidenceStrength": null,
          "reason": "Interaction substance correct was not applicable to this model."
        },
        {
          "label": "Uncertainty handling appropriate",
          "studentValue": 2,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "marksLost": 0,
          "status": "scored",
          "confidence": "high",
          "evidenceStrength": 1,
          "reason": "Uncertainty was handled appropriately for this model."
        },
        {
          "label": "Inferential register appropriate",
          "studentValue": 2,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "marksLost": 0,
          "status": "scored",
          "confidence": "high",
          "evidenceStrength": 1,
          "reason": "The wording matched the evidence level well."
        },
        {
          "label": "Main-effect coverage adequate",
          "studentValue": 2,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "marksLost": 0,
          "status": "scored",
          "confidence": "high",
          "evidenceStrength": 1,
          "reason": "The main effect was described adequately."
        },
        {
          "label": "Reference-group coverage adequate",
          "studentValue": 2,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "marksLost": 0,
          "status": "scored",
          "confidence": "high",
          "evidenceStrength": 1,
          "reason": "Reference-group context was included where needed."
        },
        {
          "label": "Clarity adequate",
          "studentValue": 2,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "marksLost": 0,
          "status": "scored",
          "confidence": "high",
          "evidenceStrength": 1,
          "reason": "The explanation wording was acceptably clear."
        },
        {
          "label": "Numeric expression adequate",
          "studentValue": 2,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "marksLost": 0,
          "status": "scored",
          "confidence": "high",
          "evidenceStrength": 1,
          "reason": "The explanation handled numeric information adequately."
        },
        {
          "label": "Comparison structure clear",
          "studentValue": 2,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "marksLost": 0,
          "status": "scored",
          "confidence": "high",
          "evidenceStrength": 1,
          "reason": "Comparisons were structured clearly."
        }
      ],
      "whereMarksLost": [],
      "strengths": [
        {
          "metric": "calibrationScore",
          "label": "Calibration score",
          "studentValue": 2,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "comment": "The explanation kept its claims reasonably well calibrated."
        },
        {
          "metric": "clarityAdequate",
          "label": "Clarity adequate",
          "studentValue": 2,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "comment": "The explanation wording was acceptably clear."
        },
        {
          "metric": "clarityScore",
          "label": "Clarity score",
          "studentValue": 2,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "comment": "The explanation was generally clear and readable."
        },
        {
          "metric": "comparisonStructureClear",
          "label": "Comparison structure clear",
          "studentValue": 2,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "comment": "Comparisons were structured clearly."
        },
        {
          "metric": "completenessScore",
          "label": "Completeness score",
          "studentValue": 2,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "comment": "The explanation covered the main parts of the model story."
        },
        {
          "metric": "effectDirectionCorrect",
          "label": "Effect direction correct",
          "studentValue": 2,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "comment": "The direction of the fitted effect was described correctly."
        },
        {
          "metric": "effectScaleAppropriate",
          "label": "Effect scale appropriate",
          "studentValue": 2,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "comment": "The effect was described on an appropriate scale."
        },
        {
          "metric": "factualScore",
          "label": "Factual score",
          "studentValue": 2,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "comment": "The explanation stayed close to the fitted model facts."
        },
        {
          "metric": "inferenceScore",
          "label": "Inference score",
          "studentValue": 2,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "comment": "The explanation used an appropriate inferential tone."
        },
        {
          "metric": "inferentialRegisterAppropriate",
          "label": "Inferential register appropriate",
          "studentValue": 2,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "comment": "The wording matched the evidence level well."
        },
        {
          "metric": "mainEffectCoverageAdequate",
          "label": "Main-effect coverage adequate",
          "studentValue": 2,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "comment": "The main effect was described adequately."
        },
        {
          "metric": "numericExpressionAdequate",
          "label": "Numeric expression adequate",
          "studentValue": 2,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "comment": "The explanation handled numeric information adequately."
        },
        {
          "metric": "referenceGroupHandledCorrectly",
          "label": "Reference group handled correctly",
          "studentValue": 2,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "comment": "Baseline or reference-group information was handled appropriately."
        },
        {
          "metric": "referenceGroupCoverageAdequate",
          "label": "Reference-group coverage adequate",
          "studentValue": 2,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "comment": "Reference-group context was included where needed."
        },
        {
          "metric": "uncertaintyHandlingAppropriate",
          "label": "Uncertainty handling appropriate",
          "studentValue": 2,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "comment": "Uncertainty was handled appropriately for this model."
        }
      ],
      "objectSummaryText": "WMFM grade summary\n------------------\nMethod: deterministic \nRuns: 1 \nMark mean:10.00[10.00, 10.00]\nOverall score mean:100.00[100.00, 100.00]\n\nElapsed time: 0s \nMean time per run: 0s "
    }
  },
  "repeated": {
    "totalRuns": 3,
    "elapsedSeconds": 39.6459,
    "createdAt": "2026-05-08 14:42:16.613929",
    "summary": [
      {
        "requestedRuns": 3,
        "completedRuns": 3,
        "scoredRuns": 3,
        "meanMark": 6,
        "minMark": 4,
        "maxMark": 10,
        "elapsed": "39.6 seconds"
      }
    ],
    "runTable": [
      {
        "run": 1,
        "scored": true,
        "overallScore": 100,
        "mark": 10,
        "elapsedSeconds": 11.9,
        "status": "scored"
      },
      {
        "run": 2,
        "scored": true,
        "overallScore": 40,
        "mark": 4,
        "elapsedSeconds": 14.3,
        "status": "scored"
      },
      {
        "run": 3,
        "scored": true,
        "overallScore": 40,
        "mark": 4,
        "elapsedSeconds": 13.4,
        "status": "scored"
      }
    ],
    "runs": [
      {
        "run": 1,
        "status": "scored",
        "elapsedSeconds": 11.9,
        "explanation": "Do the average final exam marks differ by gender in this course example? The analysis compares expected final exam scores for female and male students. For a female student the expected score is 55, with a 95 % confidence interval of 50 to 59. for a male student the expected score is 51, with a 95 % confidence interval of 46 to 55. Because the intervals overlap and the difference is modest, the evidence for a consistent gender difference is weak. On average, female students score roughly four points higher than male students, but the uncertainty shows no clear evidence that the gender effect is different from zero.",
        "grade": {
          "class": ["wmfmGrade", "list"],
          "scoreScale": 10,
          "scored": true,
          "method": "deterministic",
          "summary": [
            {
              "method": "deterministic",
              "overallScore": 100,
              "mark": 10,
              "scoreScale": 10,
              "scored": true
            }
          ],
          "metrics": [
            {
              "label": "Overall score",
              "studentValue": 100,
              "maxValue": 100,
              "marksLost": 0,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "high",
              "evidenceStrength": 1,
              "reason": "The explanation met all applicable deterministic rubric criteria."
            },
            {
              "label": "Factual score",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 0,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "high",
              "evidenceStrength": 1,
              "reason": "The explanation stayed close to the fitted model facts."
            },
            {
              "label": "Inference score",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 0,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "high",
              "evidenceStrength": 1,
              "reason": "The explanation used an appropriate inferential tone."
            },
            {
              "label": "Completeness score",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 0,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "high",
              "evidenceStrength": 1,
              "reason": "The explanation covered the main parts of the model story."
            },
            {
              "label": "Clarity score",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 0,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "high",
              "evidenceStrength": 1,
              "reason": "The explanation was generally clear and readable."
            },
            {
              "label": "Calibration score",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 0,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "high",
              "evidenceStrength": 1,
              "reason": "The explanation kept its claims reasonably well calibrated."
            },
            {
              "label": "Effect direction correct",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 0,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "high",
              "evidenceStrength": 1,
              "reason": "The direction of the fitted effect was described correctly."
            },
            {
              "label": "Effect scale appropriate",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 0,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "high",
              "evidenceStrength": 1,
              "reason": "The effect was described on an appropriate scale."
            },
            {
              "label": "Reference group handled correctly",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 0,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "high",
              "evidenceStrength": 1,
              "reason": "Baseline or reference-group information was handled appropriately."
            },
            {
              "label": "Interaction coverage adequate",
              "studentValue": null,
              "maxValue": 0,
              "marksLost": 0,
              "status": "not_applicable",
              "confidence": "not_applicable",
              "evidenceStrength": null,
              "reason": "Interaction coverage adequate was not applicable to this model."
            },
            {
              "label": "Interaction substance correct",
              "studentValue": null,
              "maxValue": 0,
              "marksLost": 0,
              "status": "not_applicable",
              "confidence": "not_applicable",
              "evidenceStrength": null,
              "reason": "Interaction substance correct was not applicable to this model."
            },
            {
              "label": "Uncertainty handling appropriate",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 0,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "high",
              "evidenceStrength": 1,
              "reason": "Uncertainty was handled appropriately for this model."
            },
            {
              "label": "Inferential register appropriate",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 0,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "high",
              "evidenceStrength": 1,
              "reason": "The wording matched the evidence level well."
            },
            {
              "label": "Main-effect coverage adequate",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 0,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "high",
              "evidenceStrength": 1,
              "reason": "The main effect was described adequately."
            },
            {
              "label": "Reference-group coverage adequate",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 0,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "high",
              "evidenceStrength": 1,
              "reason": "Reference-group context was included where needed."
            },
            {
              "label": "Clarity adequate",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 0,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "high",
              "evidenceStrength": 1,
              "reason": "The explanation wording was acceptably clear."
            },
            {
              "label": "Numeric expression adequate",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 0,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "high",
              "evidenceStrength": 1,
              "reason": "The explanation handled numeric information adequately."
            },
            {
              "label": "Comparison structure clear",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 0,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "high",
              "evidenceStrength": 1,
              "reason": "Comparisons were structured clearly."
            }
          ],
          "whereMarksLost": [],
          "strengths": [
            {
              "metric": "calibrationScore",
              "label": "Calibration score",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "The explanation kept its claims reasonably well calibrated."
            },
            {
              "metric": "clarityAdequate",
              "label": "Clarity adequate",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "The explanation wording was acceptably clear."
            },
            {
              "metric": "clarityScore",
              "label": "Clarity score",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "The explanation was generally clear and readable."
            },
            {
              "metric": "comparisonStructureClear",
              "label": "Comparison structure clear",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "Comparisons were structured clearly."
            },
            {
              "metric": "completenessScore",
              "label": "Completeness score",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "The explanation covered the main parts of the model story."
            },
            {
              "metric": "effectDirectionCorrect",
              "label": "Effect direction correct",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "The direction of the fitted effect was described correctly."
            },
            {
              "metric": "effectScaleAppropriate",
              "label": "Effect scale appropriate",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "The effect was described on an appropriate scale."
            },
            {
              "metric": "factualScore",
              "label": "Factual score",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "The explanation stayed close to the fitted model facts."
            },
            {
              "metric": "inferenceScore",
              "label": "Inference score",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "The explanation used an appropriate inferential tone."
            },
            {
              "metric": "inferentialRegisterAppropriate",
              "label": "Inferential register appropriate",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "The wording matched the evidence level well."
            },
            {
              "metric": "mainEffectCoverageAdequate",
              "label": "Main-effect coverage adequate",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "The main effect was described adequately."
            },
            {
              "metric": "numericExpressionAdequate",
              "label": "Numeric expression adequate",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "The explanation handled numeric information adequately."
            },
            {
              "metric": "referenceGroupHandledCorrectly",
              "label": "Reference group handled correctly",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "Baseline or reference-group information was handled appropriately."
            },
            {
              "metric": "referenceGroupCoverageAdequate",
              "label": "Reference-group coverage adequate",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "Reference-group context was included where needed."
            },
            {
              "metric": "uncertaintyHandlingAppropriate",
              "label": "Uncertainty handling appropriate",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "Uncertainty was handled appropriately for this model."
            }
          ],
          "objectSummaryText": "WMFM grade summary\n------------------\nMethod: deterministic \nRuns: 1 \nMark mean:10.00[10.00, 10.00]\nOverall score mean:100.00[100.00, 100.00]\n\nElapsed time: 0s \nMean time per run: 0s "
        }
      },
      {
        "run": 2,
        "status": "scored",
        "elapsedSeconds": 14.3,
        "explanation": "Do average final exam marks differ by gender in this course example? The results give an expected final mark of 55 for female students (95 % CI 50 to 59) and 51 for male students (95 % CI 46 to 55). because the intervals overlap, the evidence for a consistent gender difference is weak, suggesting that on average the two groups perform similarly.",
        "grade": {
          "class": ["wmfmGrade", "list"],
          "scoreScale": 10,
          "scored": true,
          "method": "deterministic",
          "summary": [
            {
              "method": "deterministic",
              "overallScore": 40,
              "mark": 4,
              "scoreScale": 10,
              "scored": true
            }
          ],
          "metrics": [
            {
              "label": "Overall score",
              "studentValue": 40,
              "maxValue": 100,
              "marksLost": 60,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "low",
              "evidenceStrength": 0.4,
              "reason": "The explanation lost marks across multiple rubric areas."
            },
            {
              "label": "Factual score",
              "studentValue": 0.75,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 1.25,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "low",
              "evidenceStrength": 0.38,
              "reason": "Some factual details were weak, incomplete, or not fully correct."
            },
            {
              "label": "Inference score",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 0,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "high",
              "evidenceStrength": 1,
              "reason": "The explanation used an appropriate inferential tone."
            },
            {
              "label": "Completeness score",
              "studentValue": 1.25,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 0.75,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "medium",
              "evidenceStrength": 0.62,
              "reason": "Some relevant parts of the fitted model story were only partly covered."
            },
            {
              "label": "Clarity score",
              "studentValue": 1.25,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 0.75,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "medium",
              "evidenceStrength": 0.62,
              "reason": "The explanation could be clearer or more clearly structured."
            },
            {
              "label": "Calibration score",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 0,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "high",
              "evidenceStrength": 1,
              "reason": "The explanation kept its claims reasonably well calibrated."
            },
            {
              "label": "Effect direction correct",
              "studentValue": 0,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 2,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "low",
              "evidenceStrength": 0,
              "reason": "The explanation did not state the correct effect direction."
            },
            {
              "label": "Effect scale appropriate",
              "studentValue": 0,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 2,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "low",
              "evidenceStrength": 0,
              "reason": "Numeric effects were stated, but the explanation did not make the model's effect scale clear."
            },
            {
              "label": "Reference group handled correctly",
              "studentValue": 1,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 1,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "medium",
              "evidenceStrength": 0.5,
              "reason": "Reference-group handling was not completely clean."
            },
            {
              "label": "Interaction coverage adequate",
              "studentValue": null,
              "maxValue": 0,
              "marksLost": 0,
              "status": "not_applicable",
              "confidence": "not_applicable",
              "evidenceStrength": null,
              "reason": "Interaction coverage adequate was not applicable to this model."
            },
            {
              "label": "Interaction substance correct",
              "studentValue": null,
              "maxValue": 0,
              "marksLost": 0,
              "status": "not_applicable",
              "confidence": "not_applicable",
              "evidenceStrength": null,
              "reason": "Interaction substance correct was not applicable to this model."
            },
            {
              "label": "Uncertainty handling appropriate",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 0,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "high",
              "evidenceStrength": 1,
              "reason": "Uncertainty was handled appropriately for this model."
            },
            {
              "label": "Inferential register appropriate",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 0,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "high",
              "evidenceStrength": 1,
              "reason": "The wording matched the evidence level well."
            },
            {
              "label": "Main-effect coverage adequate",
              "studentValue": 0,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 2,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "low",
              "evidenceStrength": 0,
              "reason": "The main effect was not described adequately."
            },
            {
              "label": "Reference-group coverage adequate",
              "studentValue": 1,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 1,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "medium",
              "evidenceStrength": 0.5,
              "reason": "Reference-group context was only partly covered."
            },
            {
              "label": "Clarity adequate",
              "studentValue": 1,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 1,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "medium",
              "evidenceStrength": 0.5,
              "reason": "The wording or structure could be clearer."
            },
            {
              "label": "Numeric expression adequate",
              "studentValue": 1,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 1,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "medium",
              "evidenceStrength": 0.5,
              "reason": "Numeric effect information was given, but the effect scale remained unclear."
            },
            {
              "label": "Comparison structure clear",
              "studentValue": 1,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 1,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "medium",
              "evidenceStrength": 0.5,
              "reason": "Comparison wording could be clearer or more direct."
            }
          ],
          "whereMarksLost": [
            {
              "metric": "overallScore",
              "label": "Overall score",
              "studentValue": 40,
              "maxValue": 100,
              "marksLost": 60,
              "reason": "The explanation lost marks across multiple rubric areas."
            },
            {
              "metric": "effectDirectionCorrect",
              "label": "Effect direction correct",
              "studentValue": 0,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 2,
              "reason": "The explanation did not state the correct effect direction."
            },
            {
              "metric": "effectScaleAppropriate",
              "label": "Effect scale appropriate",
              "studentValue": 0,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 2,
              "reason": "Numeric effects were stated, but the explanation did not make the model's effect scale clear."
            },
            {
              "metric": "mainEffectCoverageAdequate",
              "label": "Main-effect coverage adequate",
              "studentValue": 0,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 2,
              "reason": "The main effect was not described adequately."
            },
            {
              "metric": "factualScore",
              "label": "Factual score",
              "studentValue": 0.75,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 1.25,
              "reason": "Some factual details were weak, incomplete, or not fully correct."
            },
            {
              "metric": "clarityAdequate",
              "label": "Clarity adequate",
              "studentValue": 1,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 1,
              "reason": "The wording or structure could be clearer."
            },
            {
              "metric": "comparisonStructureClear",
              "label": "Comparison structure clear",
              "studentValue": 1,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 1,
              "reason": "Comparison wording could be clearer or more direct."
            },
            {
              "metric": "numericExpressionAdequate",
              "label": "Numeric expression adequate",
              "studentValue": 1,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 1,
              "reason": "Numeric effect information was given, but the effect scale remained unclear."
            },
            {
              "metric": "referenceGroupHandledCorrectly",
              "label": "Reference group handled correctly",
              "studentValue": 1,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 1,
              "reason": "Reference-group handling was not completely clean."
            },
            {
              "metric": "referenceGroupCoverageAdequate",
              "label": "Reference-group coverage adequate",
              "studentValue": 1,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 1,
              "reason": "Reference-group context was only partly covered."
            },
            {
              "metric": "clarityScore",
              "label": "Clarity score",
              "studentValue": 1.25,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 0.75,
              "reason": "The explanation could be clearer or more clearly structured."
            },
            {
              "metric": "completenessScore",
              "label": "Completeness score",
              "studentValue": 1.25,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 0.75,
              "reason": "Some relevant parts of the fitted model story were only partly covered."
            }
          ],
          "strengths": [
            {
              "metric": "calibrationScore",
              "label": "Calibration score",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "The explanation kept its claims reasonably well calibrated."
            },
            {
              "metric": "inferenceScore",
              "label": "Inference score",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "The explanation used an appropriate inferential tone."
            },
            {
              "metric": "inferentialRegisterAppropriate",
              "label": "Inferential register appropriate",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "The wording matched the evidence level well."
            },
            {
              "metric": "uncertaintyHandlingAppropriate",
              "label": "Uncertainty handling appropriate",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "Uncertainty was handled appropriately for this model."
            }
          ],
          "objectSummaryText": "WMFM grade summary\n------------------\nMethod: deterministic \nRuns: 1 \nMark mean:4.00[4.00, 4.00]\nOverall score mean:40.00[40.00, 40.00]\n\nElapsed time: 0s \nMean time per run: 0s "
        }
      },
      {
        "run": 3,
        "status": "scored",
        "elapsedSeconds": 13.4,
        "explanation": "Do average final exam marks differ by gender in this course example? The expected exam score for a female student is 55 (95 % CI 50 to 59), while for a male student it is 51 (95 % CI 46 to 55). because the confidence intervals overlap, the data provide weak evidence that gender explains a difference, suggesting that on average the two groups perform similarly.",
        "grade": {
          "class": ["wmfmGrade", "list"],
          "scoreScale": 10,
          "scored": true,
          "method": "deterministic",
          "summary": [
            {
              "method": "deterministic",
              "overallScore": 40,
              "mark": 4,
              "scoreScale": 10,
              "scored": true
            }
          ],
          "metrics": [
            {
              "label": "Overall score",
              "studentValue": 40,
              "maxValue": 100,
              "marksLost": 60,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "low",
              "evidenceStrength": 0.4,
              "reason": "The explanation lost marks across multiple rubric areas."
            },
            {
              "label": "Factual score",
              "studentValue": 0.75,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 1.25,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "low",
              "evidenceStrength": 0.38,
              "reason": "Some factual details were weak, incomplete, or not fully correct."
            },
            {
              "label": "Inference score",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 0,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "high",
              "evidenceStrength": 1,
              "reason": "The explanation used an appropriate inferential tone."
            },
            {
              "label": "Completeness score",
              "studentValue": 1.25,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 0.75,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "medium",
              "evidenceStrength": 0.62,
              "reason": "Some relevant parts of the fitted model story were only partly covered."
            },
            {
              "label": "Clarity score",
              "studentValue": 1.25,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 0.75,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "medium",
              "evidenceStrength": 0.62,
              "reason": "The explanation could be clearer or more clearly structured."
            },
            {
              "label": "Calibration score",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 0,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "high",
              "evidenceStrength": 1,
              "reason": "The explanation kept its claims reasonably well calibrated."
            },
            {
              "label": "Effect direction correct",
              "studentValue": 0,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 2,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "low",
              "evidenceStrength": 0,
              "reason": "The explanation did not state the correct effect direction."
            },
            {
              "label": "Effect scale appropriate",
              "studentValue": 0,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 2,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "low",
              "evidenceStrength": 0,
              "reason": "Numeric effects were stated, but the explanation did not make the model's effect scale clear."
            },
            {
              "label": "Reference group handled correctly",
              "studentValue": 1,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 1,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "medium",
              "evidenceStrength": 0.5,
              "reason": "Reference-group handling was not completely clean."
            },
            {
              "label": "Interaction coverage adequate",
              "studentValue": null,
              "maxValue": 0,
              "marksLost": 0,
              "status": "not_applicable",
              "confidence": "not_applicable",
              "evidenceStrength": null,
              "reason": "Interaction coverage adequate was not applicable to this model."
            },
            {
              "label": "Interaction substance correct",
              "studentValue": null,
              "maxValue": 0,
              "marksLost": 0,
              "status": "not_applicable",
              "confidence": "not_applicable",
              "evidenceStrength": null,
              "reason": "Interaction substance correct was not applicable to this model."
            },
            {
              "label": "Uncertainty handling appropriate",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 0,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "high",
              "evidenceStrength": 1,
              "reason": "Uncertainty was handled appropriately for this model."
            },
            {
              "label": "Inferential register appropriate",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 0,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "high",
              "evidenceStrength": 1,
              "reason": "The wording matched the evidence level well."
            },
            {
              "label": "Main-effect coverage adequate",
              "studentValue": 0,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 2,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "low",
              "evidenceStrength": 0,
              "reason": "The main effect was not described adequately."
            },
            {
              "label": "Reference-group coverage adequate",
              "studentValue": 1,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 1,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "medium",
              "evidenceStrength": 0.5,
              "reason": "Reference-group context was only partly covered."
            },
            {
              "label": "Clarity adequate",
              "studentValue": 1,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 1,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "medium",
              "evidenceStrength": 0.5,
              "reason": "The wording or structure could be clearer."
            },
            {
              "label": "Numeric expression adequate",
              "studentValue": 1,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 1,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "medium",
              "evidenceStrength": 0.5,
              "reason": "Numeric effect information was given, but the effect scale remained unclear."
            },
            {
              "label": "Comparison structure clear",
              "studentValue": 1,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 1,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "medium",
              "evidenceStrength": 0.5,
              "reason": "Comparison wording could be clearer or more direct."
            }
          ],
          "whereMarksLost": [
            {
              "metric": "overallScore",
              "label": "Overall score",
              "studentValue": 40,
              "maxValue": 100,
              "marksLost": 60,
              "reason": "The explanation lost marks across multiple rubric areas."
            },
            {
              "metric": "effectDirectionCorrect",
              "label": "Effect direction correct",
              "studentValue": 0,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 2,
              "reason": "The explanation did not state the correct effect direction."
            },
            {
              "metric": "effectScaleAppropriate",
              "label": "Effect scale appropriate",
              "studentValue": 0,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 2,
              "reason": "Numeric effects were stated, but the explanation did not make the model's effect scale clear."
            },
            {
              "metric": "mainEffectCoverageAdequate",
              "label": "Main-effect coverage adequate",
              "studentValue": 0,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 2,
              "reason": "The main effect was not described adequately."
            },
            {
              "metric": "factualScore",
              "label": "Factual score",
              "studentValue": 0.75,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 1.25,
              "reason": "Some factual details were weak, incomplete, or not fully correct."
            },
            {
              "metric": "clarityAdequate",
              "label": "Clarity adequate",
              "studentValue": 1,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 1,
              "reason": "The wording or structure could be clearer."
            },
            {
              "metric": "comparisonStructureClear",
              "label": "Comparison structure clear",
              "studentValue": 1,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 1,
              "reason": "Comparison wording could be clearer or more direct."
            },
            {
              "metric": "numericExpressionAdequate",
              "label": "Numeric expression adequate",
              "studentValue": 1,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 1,
              "reason": "Numeric effect information was given, but the effect scale remained unclear."
            },
            {
              "metric": "referenceGroupHandledCorrectly",
              "label": "Reference group handled correctly",
              "studentValue": 1,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 1,
              "reason": "Reference-group handling was not completely clean."
            },
            {
              "metric": "referenceGroupCoverageAdequate",
              "label": "Reference-group coverage adequate",
              "studentValue": 1,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 1,
              "reason": "Reference-group context was only partly covered."
            },
            {
              "metric": "clarityScore",
              "label": "Clarity score",
              "studentValue": 1.25,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 0.75,
              "reason": "The explanation could be clearer or more clearly structured."
            },
            {
              "metric": "completenessScore",
              "label": "Completeness score",
              "studentValue": 1.25,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 0.75,
              "reason": "Some relevant parts of the fitted model story were only partly covered."
            }
          ],
          "strengths": [
            {
              "metric": "calibrationScore",
              "label": "Calibration score",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "The explanation kept its claims reasonably well calibrated."
            },
            {
              "metric": "inferenceScore",
              "label": "Inference score",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "The explanation used an appropriate inferential tone."
            },
            {
              "metric": "inferentialRegisterAppropriate",
              "label": "Inferential register appropriate",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "The wording matched the evidence level well."
            },
            {
              "metric": "uncertaintyHandlingAppropriate",
              "label": "Uncertainty handling appropriate",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "Uncertainty was handled appropriately for this model."
            }
          ],
          "objectSummaryText": "WMFM grade summary\n------------------\nMethod: deterministic \nRuns: 1 \nMark mean:4.00[4.00, 4.00]\nOverall score mean:40.00[40.00, 40.00]\n\nElapsed time: 0s \nMean time per run: 0s "
        }
      }
    ]
  }
}