{
  "schema": "wmfm-developer-scoring-export",
  "schemaVersion": "1.1.0",
  "createdAt": "2026-05-08 14:49:59.233718",
  "purpose": "developer scoring and grading diagnostics",
  "method": "deterministic",
  "appState": {
    "modelClass": ["glm", "lm"],
    "modelType": "logistic",
    "hasFactorPredictors": false,
    "hasInteractionTerms": false,
    "formula": "Pass ~ StudyHours",
    "exampleName": "test-SG-4",
    "package": null,
    "researchQuestion": "How does the test mark relate to the probability of passing?"
  },
  "current": {
    "explanation": "The question is: how does the test mark relate to the probability of passing? The model gives an estimated probability of passing of 84 % (95 % confidence interval 73 % to 91 %) for a student who studies an average of 11.567 hours. For each additional hour of study, the odds of passing double (odds multiplier = 2. 95 % confidence interval 1.6 to 2.5). Because the model does not include the test mark as a predictor, it does not provide any estimate of how test marks affect the probability of passing. Consequently, the relationship between test mark and passing cannot be inferred from this analysis.",
    "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": 1,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "marksLost": 1,
          "status": "scored",
          "confidence": "medium",
          "evidenceStrength": 0.5,
          "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": 1.5,
          "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": 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": 1,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "marksLost": 1,
          "status": "scored",
          "confidence": "medium",
          "evidenceStrength": 0.5,
          "reason": "Numeric effects were stated, but the explanation did not make the model's effect scale clear."
        },
        {
          "label": "Reference group handled correctly",
          "studentValue": null,
          "maxValue": 0,
          "marksLost": 0,
          "status": "not_applicable",
          "confidence": "not_applicable",
          "evidenceStrength": null,
          "reason": "Reference group handled correctly was not applicable to this model."
        },
        {
          "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": null,
          "maxValue": 0,
          "marksLost": 0,
          "status": "not_applicable",
          "confidence": "not_applicable",
          "evidenceStrength": null,
          "reason": "Reference-group coverage adequate was not applicable to this model."
        },
        {
          "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": 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": null,
          "maxValue": 0,
          "marksLost": 0,
          "status": "not_applicable",
          "confidence": "not_applicable",
          "evidenceStrength": null,
          "reason": "Comparison structure clear was not applicable to this model."
        }
      ],
      "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": "mainEffectCoverageAdequate",
          "label": "Main-effect coverage adequate",
          "studentValue": 0,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "marksLost": 2,
          "reason": "The main effect was not described adequately."
        },
        {
          "metric": "effectScaleAppropriate",
          "label": "Effect scale appropriate",
          "studentValue": 1,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "marksLost": 1,
          "reason": "Numeric effects were stated, but the explanation did not make the model's effect scale clear."
        },
        {
          "metric": "factualScore",
          "label": "Factual score",
          "studentValue": 1,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "marksLost": 1,
          "reason": "Some factual details were weak, incomplete, or not fully correct."
        },
        {
          "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": "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."
        },
        {
          "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": "clarityAdequate",
          "label": "Clarity adequate",
          "studentValue": 2,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "comment": "The explanation wording was acceptably clear."
        },
        {
          "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 "
    }
  },
  "repeated": {
    "totalRuns": 3,
    "elapsedSeconds": 46.3872,
    "createdAt": "2026-05-08 14:49:59.225687",
    "summary": [
      {
        "requestedRuns": 3,
        "completedRuns": 3,
        "scoredRuns": 3,
        "meanMark": 5.87,
        "minMark": 4,
        "maxMark": 9.62,
        "elapsed": "46.4 seconds"
      }
    ],
    "runTable": [
      {
        "run": 1,
        "scored": true,
        "overallScore": 96.2,
        "mark": 9.62,
        "elapsedSeconds": 19.7,
        "status": "scored"
      },
      {
        "run": 2,
        "scored": true,
        "overallScore": 40,
        "mark": 4,
        "elapsedSeconds": 14.2,
        "status": "scored"
      },
      {
        "run": 3,
        "scored": true,
        "overallScore": 40,
        "mark": 4,
        "elapsedSeconds": 12.5,
        "status": "scored"
      }
    ],
    "runs": [
      {
        "run": 1,
        "status": "scored",
        "elapsedSeconds": 19.7,
        "explanation": "How does the test mark relate to the probability of passing? The model does not include a test mark variable, so it cannot tell us how a mark changes the chance of passing. It does, however, describe how study effort affects the outcome. For a student who studies the typical 11.567 hours, the estimated probability of passing is 84% (95% confidence interval 73% to 91%). Each additional hour of study roughly doubles the odds that the student passes (odds multiplier estimate 2, 95% confidence interval 1.6 to 2.5). Overall, the model gives evidence that increased study time is associated with a higher probability of passing, but it does not provide information about the relationship between the test mark and passing.",
        "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": 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": 1,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 1,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "medium",
              "evidenceStrength": 0.5,
              "reason": "Numeric effects were stated, but the explanation did not make the model's effect scale clear."
            },
            {
              "label": "Reference group handled correctly",
              "studentValue": null,
              "maxValue": 0,
              "marksLost": 0,
              "status": "not_applicable",
              "confidence": "not_applicable",
              "evidenceStrength": null,
              "reason": "Reference group handled correctly was not applicable to this model."
            },
            {
              "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": null,
              "maxValue": 0,
              "marksLost": 0,
              "status": "not_applicable",
              "confidence": "not_applicable",
              "evidenceStrength": null,
              "reason": "Reference-group coverage adequate was not applicable to this model."
            },
            {
              "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": null,
              "maxValue": 0,
              "marksLost": 0,
              "status": "not_applicable",
              "confidence": "not_applicable",
              "evidenceStrength": null,
              "reason": "Comparison structure clear was not applicable to this model."
            }
          ],
          "whereMarksLost": [
            {
              "metric": "overallScore",
              "label": "Overall score",
              "studentValue": 96.2,
              "maxValue": 100,
              "marksLost": 3.8,
              "reason": "The explanation lost marks across multiple rubric areas."
            },
            {
              "metric": "effectScaleAppropriate",
              "label": "Effect scale appropriate",
              "studentValue": 1,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 1,
              "reason": "Numeric effects were stated, but the explanation did not make the model's effect scale clear."
            },
            {
              "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": "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": "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": "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:9.62[9.62, 9.62]\nOverall score mean:96.20[96.20, 96.20]\n\nElapsed time: 0s \nMean time per run: 0s "
        }
      },
      {
        "run": 2,
        "status": "scored",
        "elapsedSeconds": 14.2,
        "explanation": "The researcher asks how a test mark influences the chance of passing an exam. At the average level of study effort-about 11.6 hours-the estimated probability of passing is 84% (95% confidence interval 73% to 91%). For each additional hour of study, the odds that a student passes are multiplied by about 2 (95% confidence interval 1.6 to 2.5). Because the analysis does not include a test-mark variable, it cannot explain how test marks change the probability of passing. Therefore it cannot directly answer the research question.",
        "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": 1,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 1,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "medium",
              "evidenceStrength": 0.5,
              "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": 1.5,
              "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": 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": 1,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 1,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "medium",
              "evidenceStrength": 0.5,
              "reason": "Numeric effects were stated, but the explanation did not make the model's effect scale clear."
            },
            {
              "label": "Reference group handled correctly",
              "studentValue": null,
              "maxValue": 0,
              "marksLost": 0,
              "status": "not_applicable",
              "confidence": "not_applicable",
              "evidenceStrength": null,
              "reason": "Reference group handled correctly was not applicable to this model."
            },
            {
              "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": null,
              "maxValue": 0,
              "marksLost": 0,
              "status": "not_applicable",
              "confidence": "not_applicable",
              "evidenceStrength": null,
              "reason": "Reference-group coverage adequate was not applicable to this model."
            },
            {
              "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": 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": null,
              "maxValue": 0,
              "marksLost": 0,
              "status": "not_applicable",
              "confidence": "not_applicable",
              "evidenceStrength": null,
              "reason": "Comparison structure clear was not applicable to this model."
            }
          ],
          "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": "mainEffectCoverageAdequate",
              "label": "Main-effect coverage adequate",
              "studentValue": 0,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 2,
              "reason": "The main effect was not described adequately."
            },
            {
              "metric": "effectScaleAppropriate",
              "label": "Effect scale appropriate",
              "studentValue": 1,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 1,
              "reason": "Numeric effects were stated, but the explanation did not make the model's effect scale clear."
            },
            {
              "metric": "factualScore",
              "label": "Factual score",
              "studentValue": 1,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 1,
              "reason": "Some factual details were weak, incomplete, or not fully correct."
            },
            {
              "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": "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."
            },
            {
              "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": "clarityAdequate",
              "label": "Clarity adequate",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "The explanation wording was acceptably clear."
            },
            {
              "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": 12.5,
        "explanation": "The research question asks how a student’s test mark influences the chance of passing. The available analysis includes only the effect of study effort, not the test mark, so it cannot directly answer that question. For a student who studies about 11.6 hours, the predicted chance of passing is 84% (95% confidence interval 73% to 91%). Each additional hour of study roughly doubles the odds of passing (odds multiplier 2. 95% confidence interval 1.6 to 2.5). Because the model does not contain a test-mark variable, it does not provide an estimate of how test scores affect the probability of passing.",
        "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": 1,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 1,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "medium",
              "evidenceStrength": 0.5,
              "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": 1.5,
              "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": 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": 1,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 1,
              "status": "scored",
              "confidence": "medium",
              "evidenceStrength": 0.5,
              "reason": "Numeric effects were stated, but the explanation did not make the model's effect scale clear."
            },
            {
              "label": "Reference group handled correctly",
              "studentValue": null,
              "maxValue": 0,
              "marksLost": 0,
              "status": "not_applicable",
              "confidence": "not_applicable",
              "evidenceStrength": null,
              "reason": "Reference group handled correctly was not applicable to this model."
            },
            {
              "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": null,
              "maxValue": 0,
              "marksLost": 0,
              "status": "not_applicable",
              "confidence": "not_applicable",
              "evidenceStrength": null,
              "reason": "Reference-group coverage adequate was not applicable to this model."
            },
            {
              "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": 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": null,
              "maxValue": 0,
              "marksLost": 0,
              "status": "not_applicable",
              "confidence": "not_applicable",
              "evidenceStrength": null,
              "reason": "Comparison structure clear was not applicable to this model."
            }
          ],
          "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": "mainEffectCoverageAdequate",
              "label": "Main-effect coverage adequate",
              "studentValue": 0,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 2,
              "reason": "The main effect was not described adequately."
            },
            {
              "metric": "effectScaleAppropriate",
              "label": "Effect scale appropriate",
              "studentValue": 1,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 1,
              "reason": "Numeric effects were stated, but the explanation did not make the model's effect scale clear."
            },
            {
              "metric": "factualScore",
              "label": "Factual score",
              "studentValue": 1,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "marksLost": 1,
              "reason": "Some factual details were weak, incomplete, or not fully correct."
            },
            {
              "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": "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."
            },
            {
              "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": "clarityAdequate",
              "label": "Clarity adequate",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "The explanation wording was acceptably clear."
            },
            {
              "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 "
        }
      }
    ]
  }
}