{
  "schema": "wmfm-developer-scoring-export",
  "schemaVersion": "1.1.0",
  "createdAt": "2026-05-10 11:25:28.804729",
  "purpose": "developer scoring and grading diagnostics",
  "method": "deterministic",
  "appState": {
    "modelClass": "lm",
    "modelType": "lm",
    "hasFactorPredictors": true,
    "hasInteractionTerms": true,
    "formula": "Exam ~ Attend * Gender + Test",
    "exampleName": "test-SG-5",
    "package": null,
    "researchQuestion": "Does the relationship between attendance and final exam mark differ by gender after accounting for the mid-term test mark?"
  },
  "current": {
    "explanation": "Does the relationship between attendance and final exam mark differ by gender? That is, after accounting for mid-term test performance, is the association between attendance and exam marks different for female and male students? The model explains about 63% of the variation in final exam marks. For students who attended regularly, each additional mark on the mid-term test is associated with an expected increase of about 3.1 marks on the final exam (95% confidence interval 2.5 to 3.7). For students who did not attend regularly, the association is similar: each additional mid-term mark is associated with an expected increase of about 2.5 marks on the final exam (95% confidence interval 1.8 to 3.2). Comparing these associations, there is no clear evidence that the relationship between mid-term and final exam marks differs meaningfully by attendance pattern. Turning to gender, among students with average mid-term marks who attended regularly, the expected final exam mark is about 59.7 for female students and 60.8 for male students, a difference of about 1.1 marks (95% confidence interval -3.8 to 6). this difference is small and uncertain. Among students who did not attend regularly, the pattern reverses slightly, with female students scoring about 1.8 marks higher than male students (95% confidence interval -4.1 to 7.7), though again the data do not clearly support a meaningful difference. The difference between these gender gaps across attendance groups is modest and uncertain, consistent with values ranging from female students doing 6.8 marks worse to 3.9 marks better when attendance is regular compared to irregular (95% confidence interval -6.8 to 3.9). Overall, the model does not show clear evidence that the relationship between attendance and final exam mark differs by gender after accounting for mid-term performance. While the fitted values suggest female students may benefit slightly more from regular attendance than male students, the confidence interval is wide and includes both substantial advantages and disadvantages, so the data are consistent with little to no difference between genders in how attendance relates to exam performance.",
    "grade": {
      "class": ["wmfmGrade", "list"],
      "scoreScale": 10,
      "scored": true,
      "method": "deterministic",
      "summary": [
        {
          "method": "deterministic",
          "overallScore": 96.2,
          "mark": 9.62,
          "scoreScale": 10,
          "scored": true
        }
      ],
      "metrics": [
        {
          "label": "Overall score",
          "studentValue": 96.2,
          "maxValue": 100,
          "marksLost": 3.8,
          "status": "scored",
          "confidence": "medium",
          "evidenceStrength": 0.96,
          "reason": "The explanation lost marks across multiple rubric areas."
        },
        {
          "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": 1.5,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "marksLost": 0.5,
          "status": "scored",
          "confidence": "medium",
          "evidenceStrength": 0.75,
          "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": 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": 2,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "marksLost": 0,
          "status": "scored",
          "confidence": "high",
          "evidenceStrength": 1,
          "reason": "Interaction structure was acknowledged where needed."
        },
        {
          "label": "Interaction substance correct",
          "studentValue": 2,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "marksLost": 0,
          "status": "scored",
          "confidence": "high",
          "evidenceStrength": 1,
          "reason": "Any interaction interpretation was substantively appropriate."
        },
        {
          "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": 0,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "marksLost": 2,
          "status": "scored",
          "confidence": "low",
          "evidenceStrength": 0,
          "reason": "The explanation wording or structure was not adequately 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": [
        {
          "metric": "overallScore",
          "label": "Overall score",
          "studentValue": 96.2,
          "maxValue": 100,
          "marksLost": 3.8,
          "reason": "The explanation lost marks across multiple rubric areas."
        },
        {
          "metric": "clarityAdequate",
          "label": "Clarity adequate",
          "studentValue": 0,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "marksLost": 2,
          "reason": "The explanation wording or structure was not adequately clear."
        },
        {
          "metric": "clarityScore",
          "label": "Clarity score",
          "studentValue": 1.5,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "marksLost": 0.5,
          "reason": "The explanation could be clearer or more clearly structured."
        }
      ],
      "strengths": [
        {
          "metric": "calibrationScore",
          "label": "Calibration score",
          "studentValue": 2,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "comment": "The explanation kept its claims reasonably well calibrated."
        },
        {
          "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": "interactionCoverageAdequate",
          "label": "Interaction coverage adequate",
          "studentValue": 2,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "comment": "Interaction structure was acknowledged where needed."
        },
        {
          "metric": "interactionSubstantiveCorrect",
          "label": "Interaction substance correct",
          "studentValue": 2,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "comment": "Any interaction interpretation was substantively appropriate."
        },
        {
          "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": "referenceGroupCoverageAdequate",
          "label": "Reference-group coverage adequate",
          "studentValue": 2,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "comment": "Reference-group context was included where needed."
        },
        {
          "metric": "referenceGroupHandledCorrectly",
          "label": "Reference group handled correctly",
          "studentValue": 2,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "comment": "Baseline or reference-group information was handled appropriately."
        },
        {
          "metric": "uncertaintyHandlingAppropriate",
          "label": "Uncertainty handling appropriate",
          "studentValue": 2,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "comment": "Uncertainty was handled appropriately for this model."
        }
      ],
      "semanticEvidence": [
        {
          "field": "effectDirection",
          "label": "Effect direction",
          "value": "mixed_or_both",
          "evidencePresent": true,
          "detail": "Direction inferred from directional wording or group estimates."
        },
        {
          "field": "effectMagnitude",
          "label": "Effect magnitude",
          "value": "3.1",
          "evidencePresent": true,
          "detail": "First clearly stated fitted magnitude found near effect wording."
        },
        {
          "field": "effectScale",
          "label": "Effect scale",
          "value": "additive",
          "evidencePresent": true,
          "detail": "Scale inferred from additive or multiplicative model language."
        },
        {
          "field": "uncertaintyMentioned",
          "label": "Uncertainty mentioned",
          "value": "present",
          "evidencePresent": true,
          "detail": "Uncertainty language such as confidence intervals, overlap, or weak evidence."
        },
        {
          "field": "interactionAcknowledged",
          "label": "Interaction acknowledged",
          "value": "present",
          "evidencePresent": true,
          "detail": "Interaction or slope-difference structure mentioned."
        },
        {
          "field": "comparisonMentioned",
          "label": "Comparison mentioned",
          "value": "present",
          "evidencePresent": true,
          "detail": "Group comparison or contrast language mentioned."
        },
        {
          "field": "noClearDifferenceMentioned",
          "label": "No-clear-difference language",
          "value": "present",
          "evidencePresent": true,
          "detail": "Language indicating no clear or well-supported difference."
        },
        {
          "field": "modelCannotAnswerQuestion",
          "label": "Model cannot answer question",
          "value": "absent",
          "evidencePresent": false,
          "detail": "Explanation says the fitted model cannot directly answer the research question."
        },
        {
          "field": "researchQuestionAnsweredDirectly",
          "label": "Research question answered directly",
          "value": "present",
          "evidencePresent": true,
          "detail": "Whether the fitted model is treated as directly answering the research question."
        },
        {
          "field": "alternativeModelInterpretationProvided",
          "label": "Alternative model interpretation provided",
          "value": "absent",
          "evidencePresent": false,
          "detail": "Explanation gives the fitted predictor interpretation when the research question predictor is absent."
        }
      ],
      "objectSummaryText": "WMFM grade summary\n------------------\nMethod: deterministic \nRuns: 1 \nMark mean:9.62[9.62, 9.62]\nOverall score mean:96.20[96.20, 96.20]\n\nElapsed time: 0s \nMean time per run: 0s "
    }
  },
  "repeated": {
    "totalRuns": 3,
    "elapsedSeconds": 24.637,
    "createdAt": "2026-05-10 11:25:28.794692",
    "summary": [
      {
        "requestedRuns": 3,
        "completedRuns": 3,
        "scoredRuns": 3,
        "meanMark": 9.87,
        "minMark": 9.62,
        "maxMark": 10,
        "elapsed": "24.6 seconds"
      }
    ],
    "runTable": [
      {
        "run": 1,
        "scored": true,
        "overallScore": 100,
        "mark": 10,
        "elapsedSeconds": 9.1,
        "status": "scored"
      },
      {
        "run": 2,
        "scored": true,
        "overallScore": 100,
        "mark": 10,
        "elapsedSeconds": 8,
        "status": "scored"
      },
      {
        "run": 3,
        "scored": true,
        "overallScore": 96.2,
        "mark": 9.62,
        "elapsedSeconds": 7.6,
        "status": "scored"
      }
    ],
    "runs": [
      {
        "run": 1,
        "status": "scored",
        "elapsedSeconds": 9.1,
        "explanation": "Does the relationship between attendance and final exam mark differ by gender after accounting for mid-term test performance? The model explains about 63% of the variation in final exam marks. Among female students with average mid-term test marks (around 11.6 out of 100), those who attended regularly scored about 59.7 on the final exam, while those who did not attend regularly scored about 48.6, a difference of about 11.1 marks (95% confidence interval 5.3 to 16.9). Among male students with similar mid-term marks, regular attenders scored about 60.8 compared to 51.5 for non-attenders, a difference of about 9.3 marks (95% confidence interval 3.6 to 15). The difference between these attendance effects across genders is modest: the data are consistent with female students benefiting anywhere from 6.8 marks less to 3.9 marks more from regular attendance compared to male students (95% confidence interval -6.8 to 3.9), indicating no clear evidence that attendance relates to exam performance differently for the two genders. Overall, after accounting for mid-term test performance, there is no clear evidence that the relationship between attendance and final exam mark differs by gender. Both female and male students who attended regularly tended to score higher on the final exam, with expected gains of similar magnitude, though the data do not rule out modest differences in either direction.",
        "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": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 0,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "high",
              "evidenceStrength": 1,
              "reason": "Interaction structure was acknowledged where needed."
            },
            {
              "label": "Interaction substance correct",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 0,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "high",
              "evidenceStrength": 1,
              "reason": "Any interaction interpretation was substantively appropriate."
            },
            {
              "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": "interactionCoverageAdequate",
              "label": "Interaction coverage adequate",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "Interaction structure was acknowledged where needed."
            },
            {
              "metric": "interactionSubstantiveCorrect",
              "label": "Interaction substance correct",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "Any interaction interpretation was substantively appropriate."
            },
            {
              "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": "referenceGroupCoverageAdequate",
              "label": "Reference-group coverage adequate",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "Reference-group context was included where needed."
            },
            {
              "metric": "referenceGroupHandledCorrectly",
              "label": "Reference group handled correctly",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "Baseline or reference-group information was handled appropriately."
            },
            {
              "metric": "uncertaintyHandlingAppropriate",
              "label": "Uncertainty handling appropriate",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "Uncertainty was handled appropriately for this model."
            }
          ],
          "semanticEvidence": [
            {
              "field": "effectDirection",
              "label": "Effect direction",
              "value": "positive",
              "evidencePresent": true,
              "detail": "Direction inferred from directional wording or group estimates."
            },
            {
              "field": "effectMagnitude",
              "label": "Effect magnitude",
              "value": "11.1",
              "evidencePresent": true,
              "detail": "First clearly stated fitted magnitude found near effect wording."
            },
            {
              "field": "effectScale",
              "label": "Effect scale",
              "value": "additive",
              "evidencePresent": true,
              "detail": "Scale inferred from additive or multiplicative model language."
            },
            {
              "field": "uncertaintyMentioned",
              "label": "Uncertainty mentioned",
              "value": "present",
              "evidencePresent": true,
              "detail": "Uncertainty language such as confidence intervals, overlap, or weak evidence."
            },
            {
              "field": "interactionAcknowledged",
              "label": "Interaction acknowledged",
              "value": "present",
              "evidencePresent": true,
              "detail": "Interaction or slope-difference structure mentioned."
            },
            {
              "field": "comparisonMentioned",
              "label": "Comparison mentioned",
              "value": "present",
              "evidencePresent": true,
              "detail": "Group comparison or contrast language mentioned."
            },
            {
              "field": "noClearDifferenceMentioned",
              "label": "No-clear-difference language",
              "value": "present",
              "evidencePresent": true,
              "detail": "Language indicating no clear or well-supported difference."
            },
            {
              "field": "modelCannotAnswerQuestion",
              "label": "Model cannot answer question",
              "value": "absent",
              "evidencePresent": false,
              "detail": "Explanation says the fitted model cannot directly answer the research question."
            },
            {
              "field": "researchQuestionAnsweredDirectly",
              "label": "Research question answered directly",
              "value": "present",
              "evidencePresent": true,
              "detail": "Whether the fitted model is treated as directly answering the research question."
            },
            {
              "field": "alternativeModelInterpretationProvided",
              "label": "Alternative model interpretation provided",
              "value": "absent",
              "evidencePresent": false,
              "detail": "Explanation gives the fitted predictor interpretation when the research question predictor is absent."
            }
          ],
          "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": 8,
        "explanation": "Does the relationship between attendance and final exam mark differ by gender after accounting for mid-term test performance? The model explains about 63% of the variation in final exam marks. Among female students, those who attended regularly scored about 11.1 marks higher on the final exam than those who did not attend regularly (95% confidence interval 5.3 to 16.9), after accounting for mid-term test performance. Among male students, regular attenders scored about 9.3 marks higher than non-attenders (95% confidence interval 3.6 to 15). Comparing these two effects directly, the attendance difference is about 1.8 marks larger for female students than for male students, but the data are consistent with this difference ranging from female students benefiting 6.8 marks more to 3.9 marks less than male students (95% confidence interval -6.8 to 3.9). This wide range indicates no clear evidence that the relationship between attendance and exam performance differs meaningfully by gender. Overall, there is no clear evidence that the relationship between attendance and final exam mark differs by gender after accounting for mid-term test performance. Both female and male students who attended regularly tended to score higher on the final exam, with similar expected gains.",
        "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": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 0,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "high",
              "evidenceStrength": 1,
              "reason": "Interaction structure was acknowledged where needed."
            },
            {
              "label": "Interaction substance correct",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 0,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "high",
              "evidenceStrength": 1,
              "reason": "Any interaction interpretation was substantively appropriate."
            },
            {
              "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": "interactionCoverageAdequate",
              "label": "Interaction coverage adequate",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "Interaction structure was acknowledged where needed."
            },
            {
              "metric": "interactionSubstantiveCorrect",
              "label": "Interaction substance correct",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "Any interaction interpretation was substantively appropriate."
            },
            {
              "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": "referenceGroupCoverageAdequate",
              "label": "Reference-group coverage adequate",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "Reference-group context was included where needed."
            },
            {
              "metric": "referenceGroupHandledCorrectly",
              "label": "Reference group handled correctly",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "Baseline or reference-group information was handled appropriately."
            },
            {
              "metric": "uncertaintyHandlingAppropriate",
              "label": "Uncertainty handling appropriate",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "Uncertainty was handled appropriately for this model."
            }
          ],
          "semanticEvidence": [
            {
              "field": "effectDirection",
              "label": "Effect direction",
              "value": "positive",
              "evidencePresent": true,
              "detail": "Direction inferred from directional wording or group estimates."
            },
            {
              "field": "effectMagnitude",
              "label": "Effect magnitude",
              "value": "1.8",
              "evidencePresent": true,
              "detail": "First clearly stated fitted magnitude found near effect wording."
            },
            {
              "field": "effectScale",
              "label": "Effect scale",
              "value": "additive",
              "evidencePresent": true,
              "detail": "Scale inferred from additive or multiplicative model language."
            },
            {
              "field": "uncertaintyMentioned",
              "label": "Uncertainty mentioned",
              "value": "present",
              "evidencePresent": true,
              "detail": "Uncertainty language such as confidence intervals, overlap, or weak evidence."
            },
            {
              "field": "interactionAcknowledged",
              "label": "Interaction acknowledged",
              "value": "present",
              "evidencePresent": true,
              "detail": "Interaction or slope-difference structure mentioned."
            },
            {
              "field": "comparisonMentioned",
              "label": "Comparison mentioned",
              "value": "present",
              "evidencePresent": true,
              "detail": "Group comparison or contrast language mentioned."
            },
            {
              "field": "noClearDifferenceMentioned",
              "label": "No-clear-difference language",
              "value": "present",
              "evidencePresent": true,
              "detail": "Language indicating no clear or well-supported difference."
            },
            {
              "field": "modelCannotAnswerQuestion",
              "label": "Model cannot answer question",
              "value": "absent",
              "evidencePresent": false,
              "detail": "Explanation says the fitted model cannot directly answer the research question."
            },
            {
              "field": "researchQuestionAnsweredDirectly",
              "label": "Research question answered directly",
              "value": "present",
              "evidencePresent": true,
              "detail": "Whether the fitted model is treated as directly answering the research question."
            },
            {
              "field": "alternativeModelInterpretationProvided",
              "label": "Alternative model interpretation provided",
              "value": "absent",
              "evidencePresent": false,
              "detail": "Explanation gives the fitted predictor interpretation when the research question predictor is absent."
            }
          ],
          "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": 3,
        "status": "scored",
        "elapsedSeconds": 7.6,
        "explanation": "Does the relationship between attendance and final exam mark differ by gender after accounting for mid-term test performance? The model explains about 63% of the variation in final exam marks. Among female students, those who attended regularly scored about 11.1 marks higher on the final exam than those who did not attend regularly (95% confidence interval 5.3 to 16.9), after accounting for mid-term test performance. Among male students, regular attenders scored about 9.3 marks higher than non-attenders (95% confidence interval 3.6 to 15). Comparing these attendance effects, the difference is about 1.8 marks larger for female students than for male students, but the data are consistent with this difference ranging from 6.8 marks smaller to 3.9 marks larger (95% confidence interval -6.8 to 3.9), indicating no clear evidence that the attendance effect differs meaningfully between genders. Overall, there is no clear evidence that the relationship between attendance and final exam mark differs by gender after accounting for mid-term test performance. Both female and male students who attended regularly tended to score higher on the exam, with similar expected gains.",
        "grade": {
          "class": ["wmfmGrade", "list"],
          "scoreScale": 10,
          "scored": true,
          "method": "deterministic",
          "summary": [
            {
              "method": "deterministic",
              "overallScore": 96.2,
              "mark": 9.62,
              "scoreScale": 10,
              "scored": true
            }
          ],
          "metrics": [
            {
              "label": "Overall score",
              "studentValue": 96.2,
              "maxValue": 100,
              "marksLost": 3.8,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "medium",
              "evidenceStrength": 0.96,
              "reason": "The explanation lost marks across multiple rubric areas."
            },
            {
              "label": "Factual score",
              "studentValue": 1.75,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 0.25,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "medium",
              "evidenceStrength": 0.88,
              "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": 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": 1,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 1,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "medium",
              "evidenceStrength": 0.5,
              "reason": "The effect direction was not stated as clearly or as accurately as it could be."
            },
            {
              "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": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 0,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "high",
              "evidenceStrength": 1,
              "reason": "Interaction structure was acknowledged where needed."
            },
            {
              "label": "Interaction substance correct",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 0,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "high",
              "evidenceStrength": 1,
              "reason": "Any interaction interpretation was substantively appropriate."
            },
            {
              "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": [
            {
              "metric": "overallScore",
              "label": "Overall score",
              "studentValue": 96.2,
              "maxValue": 100,
              "marksLost": 3.8,
              "reason": "The explanation lost marks across multiple rubric areas."
            },
            {
              "metric": "effectDirectionCorrect",
              "label": "Effect direction correct",
              "studentValue": 1,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 1,
              "reason": "The effect direction was not stated as clearly or as accurately as it could be."
            },
            {
              "metric": "factualScore",
              "label": "Factual score",
              "studentValue": 1.75,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 0.25,
              "reason": "Some factual details were weak, incomplete, or not fully correct."
            }
          ],
          "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": "effectScaleAppropriate",
              "label": "Effect scale appropriate",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "The effect was described on an appropriate scale."
            },
            {
              "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": "interactionCoverageAdequate",
              "label": "Interaction coverage adequate",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "Interaction structure was acknowledged where needed."
            },
            {
              "metric": "interactionSubstantiveCorrect",
              "label": "Interaction substance correct",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "Any interaction interpretation was substantively appropriate."
            },
            {
              "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": "referenceGroupCoverageAdequate",
              "label": "Reference-group coverage adequate",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "Reference-group context was included where needed."
            },
            {
              "metric": "referenceGroupHandledCorrectly",
              "label": "Reference group handled correctly",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "Baseline or reference-group information was handled appropriately."
            },
            {
              "metric": "uncertaintyHandlingAppropriate",
              "label": "Uncertainty handling appropriate",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "Uncertainty was handled appropriately for this model."
            }
          ],
          "semanticEvidence": [
            {
              "field": "effectDirection",
              "label": "Effect direction",
              "value": "mixed_or_both",
              "evidencePresent": true,
              "detail": "Direction inferred from directional wording or group estimates."
            },
            {
              "field": "effectMagnitude",
              "label": "Effect magnitude",
              "value": "1.8",
              "evidencePresent": true,
              "detail": "First clearly stated fitted magnitude found near effect wording."
            },
            {
              "field": "effectScale",
              "label": "Effect scale",
              "value": "additive",
              "evidencePresent": true,
              "detail": "Scale inferred from additive or multiplicative model language."
            },
            {
              "field": "uncertaintyMentioned",
              "label": "Uncertainty mentioned",
              "value": "present",
              "evidencePresent": true,
              "detail": "Uncertainty language such as confidence intervals, overlap, or weak evidence."
            },
            {
              "field": "interactionAcknowledged",
              "label": "Interaction acknowledged",
              "value": "present",
              "evidencePresent": true,
              "detail": "Interaction or slope-difference structure mentioned."
            },
            {
              "field": "comparisonMentioned",
              "label": "Comparison mentioned",
              "value": "present",
              "evidencePresent": true,
              "detail": "Group comparison or contrast language mentioned."
            },
            {
              "field": "noClearDifferenceMentioned",
              "label": "No-clear-difference language",
              "value": "present",
              "evidencePresent": true,
              "detail": "Language indicating no clear or well-supported difference."
            },
            {
              "field": "modelCannotAnswerQuestion",
              "label": "Model cannot answer question",
              "value": "absent",
              "evidencePresent": false,
              "detail": "Explanation says the fitted model cannot directly answer the research question."
            },
            {
              "field": "researchQuestionAnsweredDirectly",
              "label": "Research question answered directly",
              "value": "present",
              "evidencePresent": true,
              "detail": "Whether the fitted model is treated as directly answering the research question."
            },
            {
              "field": "alternativeModelInterpretationProvided",
              "label": "Alternative model interpretation provided",
              "value": "absent",
              "evidencePresent": false,
              "detail": "Explanation gives the fitted predictor interpretation when the research question predictor is absent."
            }
          ],
          "objectSummaryText": "WMFM grade summary\n------------------\nMethod: deterministic \nRuns: 1 \nMark mean:9.62[9.62, 9.62]\nOverall score mean:96.20[96.20, 96.20]\n\nElapsed time: 0s \nMean time per run: 0s "
        }
      }
    ]
  }
}