{
  "schema": "wmfm-developer-scoring-export",
  "schemaVersion": "1.1.0",
  "createdAt": "2026-05-10 11:21:45.77299",
  "purpose": "developer scoring and grading diagnostics",
  "method": "deterministic",
  "appState": {
    "modelClass": "lm",
    "modelType": "lm",
    "hasFactorPredictors": false,
    "hasInteractionTerms": false,
    "formula": "Exam ~ Test",
    "exampleName": "test-SG-1",
    "package": null,
    "researchQuestion": "How does the mid-term test mark relate to the final exam mark?"
  },
  "current": {
    "explanation": "The question here is whether mid-term test marks are related to final exam marks, and if so, how strong that relationship is. For a student with an average test mark of 11.6, the expected final exam mark is 53, with a 95% confidence interval of 51 to 55. For each an increase of one unit in the test mark, the expected final exam mark increases by 3.8 marks, with a 95% confidence interval of 3.3 to 4.3. This means that students who score higher on the mid-term test tend to score higher on the final exam as well. The model explains about 59% of the variation in final exam marks, indicating that mid-term test performance is a reasonably strong predictor but does not account for all differences in exam outcomes. Overall, the data indicate a clear positive relationship: on average, each additional mark on the mid-term test is associated with an increase of about 3.8 marks on the final exam.",
    "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": 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": [],
      "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": "effectScaleAppropriate",
          "label": "Effect scale appropriate",
          "studentValue": 2,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "comment": "The effect was described on an appropriate scale."
        },
        {
          "metric": "factualScore",
          "label": "Factual score",
          "studentValue": 2,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "comment": "The explanation stayed close to the fitted model facts."
        },
        {
          "metric": "inferenceScore",
          "label": "Inference score",
          "studentValue": 2,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "comment": "The explanation used an appropriate inferential tone."
        },
        {
          "metric": "inferentialRegisterAppropriate",
          "label": "Inferential register appropriate",
          "studentValue": 2,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "comment": "The wording matched the evidence level well."
        },
        {
          "metric": "mainEffectCoverageAdequate",
          "label": "Main-effect coverage adequate",
          "studentValue": 2,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "comment": "The main effect was described adequately."
        },
        {
          "metric": "numericExpressionAdequate",
          "label": "Numeric expression adequate",
          "studentValue": 2,
          "maxValue": 2,
          "comment": "The explanation handled numeric information adequately."
        },
        {
          "metric": "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": "3.8",
          "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": "absent",
          "evidencePresent": false,
          "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": "absent",
          "evidencePresent": false,
          "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 "
    }
  },
  "repeated": {
    "totalRuns": 3,
    "elapsedSeconds": 17.3963,
    "createdAt": "2026-05-10 11:21:45.757877",
    "summary": [
      {
        "requestedRuns": 3,
        "completedRuns": 3,
        "scoredRuns": 3,
        "meanMark": 10,
        "minMark": 10,
        "maxMark": 10,
        "elapsed": "17.4 seconds"
      }
    ],
    "runTable": [
      {
        "run": 1,
        "scored": true,
        "overallScore": 100,
        "mark": 10,
        "elapsedSeconds": 5.8,
        "status": "scored"
      },
      {
        "run": 2,
        "scored": true,
        "overallScore": 100,
        "mark": 10,
        "elapsedSeconds": 5.8,
        "status": "scored"
      },
      {
        "run": 3,
        "scored": true,
        "overallScore": 100,
        "mark": 10,
        "elapsedSeconds": 5.7,
        "status": "scored"
      }
    ],
    "runs": [
      {
        "run": 1,
        "status": "scored",
        "elapsedSeconds": 5.8,
        "explanation": "The question here is whether mid-term test marks are related to final exam marks, and if so, how strong that relationship is. For a student with an average test mark of 11.6, the expected final exam mark is 53, with a 95% confidence interval of 51 to 55. For each an increase of one unit in the test mark, the expected final exam mark increases by 3.8 marks, with a 95% confidence interval of 3.3 to 4.3. The model explains about 59% of the variation in final exam marks, indicating that mid-term test performance accounts for a substantial portion of the differences in exam outcomes. Overall, the data indicate a clear positive relationship: on average, students who score higher on the mid-term test tend to score higher on the final exam, with each additional mark on the test associated with an increase of about 3.8 marks on the exam.",
        "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": 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": [],
          "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": "effectScaleAppropriate",
              "label": "Effect scale appropriate",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "The effect was described on an appropriate scale."
            },
            {
              "metric": "factualScore",
              "label": "Factual score",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "The explanation stayed close to the fitted model facts."
            },
            {
              "metric": "inferenceScore",
              "label": "Inference score",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "The explanation used an appropriate inferential tone."
            },
            {
              "metric": "inferentialRegisterAppropriate",
              "label": "Inferential register appropriate",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "The wording matched the evidence level well."
            },
            {
              "metric": "mainEffectCoverageAdequate",
              "label": "Main-effect coverage adequate",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "The main effect was described adequately."
            },
            {
              "metric": "numericExpressionAdequate",
              "label": "Numeric expression adequate",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "The explanation handled numeric information adequately."
            },
            {
              "metric": "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": "3.8",
              "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": "absent",
              "evidencePresent": false,
              "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": "absent",
              "evidencePresent": false,
              "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": 5.8,
        "explanation": "The question here is whether mid-term test marks are related to final exam marks, and if so, how strong that relationship is. For a student with an average test mark of 11.6, the expected final exam mark is 53, with a 95% confidence interval of 51 to 55. For each an increase of one unit in the test mark, the expected final exam mark increases by 3.8 marks, with a 95% confidence interval of 3.3 to 4.3. The model explains about 59% of the variation in final exam marks, indicating that mid-term test performance accounts for a substantial portion of the differences in exam outcomes. Overall, on average, students who score higher on the mid-term test tend to score higher on the final exam, with each additional mark on the test associated with an increase of about 3.8 marks on the exam.",
        "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": 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": [],
          "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": "effectScaleAppropriate",
              "label": "Effect scale appropriate",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "The effect was described on an appropriate scale."
            },
            {
              "metric": "factualScore",
              "label": "Factual score",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "The explanation stayed close to the fitted model facts."
            },
            {
              "metric": "inferenceScore",
              "label": "Inference score",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "The explanation used an appropriate inferential tone."
            },
            {
              "metric": "inferentialRegisterAppropriate",
              "label": "Inferential register appropriate",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "The wording matched the evidence level well."
            },
            {
              "metric": "mainEffectCoverageAdequate",
              "label": "Main-effect coverage adequate",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "The main effect was described adequately."
            },
            {
              "metric": "numericExpressionAdequate",
              "label": "Numeric expression adequate",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "The explanation handled numeric information adequately."
            },
            {
              "metric": "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": "3.8",
              "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": "absent",
              "evidencePresent": false,
              "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": "absent",
              "evidencePresent": false,
              "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": 5.7,
        "explanation": "The question here is whether mid-term test marks are related to final exam marks, and if so, how strong that relationship is. For a student with an average test mark of 11.6, the expected final exam mark is 53, with a 95% confidence interval of 51 to 55. For each an increase of one unit in the test mark, the expected final exam mark increases by 3.8 marks, with a 95% confidence interval of 3.3 to 4.3. The model explains about 59% of the variation in final exam marks, indicating that mid-term test performance accounts for a substantial portion of the differences in exam outcomes. On average, students who score higher on the mid-term test tend to score higher on the final exam, with each additional mark on the test associated with an increase of about 3.8 marks on the exam.",
        "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": 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": [],
          "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": "effectScaleAppropriate",
              "label": "Effect scale appropriate",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "The effect was described on an appropriate scale."
            },
            {
              "metric": "factualScore",
              "label": "Factual score",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "The explanation stayed close to the fitted model facts."
            },
            {
              "metric": "inferenceScore",
              "label": "Inference score",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "The explanation used an appropriate inferential tone."
            },
            {
              "metric": "inferentialRegisterAppropriate",
              "label": "Inferential register appropriate",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "The wording matched the evidence level well."
            },
            {
              "metric": "mainEffectCoverageAdequate",
              "label": "Main-effect coverage adequate",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "The main effect was described adequately."
            },
            {
              "metric": "numericExpressionAdequate",
              "label": "Numeric expression adequate",
              "studentValue": 2,
              "maxValue": 2,
              "comment": "The explanation handled numeric information adequately."
            },
            {
              "metric": "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": "3.8",
              "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": "absent",
              "evidencePresent": false,
              "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": "absent",
              "evidencePresent": false,
              "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 "
        }
      }
    ]
  }
}