{
  "category": "learning",
  "slug": "learning-debate-evidence-organization",
  "title": "Map Debate Evidence on Both Sides with AI — Completed Benchmark Result: 6/10",
  "task": "help students organize evidence for both sides of a debate",
  "excerpt": "The completed LFT-048 synthetic field test stopped at 6/10: three of five Debate reasoning checks passed after one correction, but Debate reasoning objective fit [LFT-048] and Debate reasoning safety and access [LFT-048] remained unsupported.",
  "tool": "Codex multi-agent session",
  "model": "Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session",
  "publishedAt": "2026-04-14T13:00:00+08:00",
  "durationMinutes": 0,
  "testMode": "Synthetic benchmark",
  "inputDisclosure": "Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-048: Students will sort a supplied evidence packet into competing claims, warrants, counterarguments, and limitations. Source facts: fictional learner artifacts LFT-048-W01 through LFT-048-W04; rubric criteria R1–R5; passages P2 and P7 as admissible evidence; an unsupported conclusion in W03; a stylistic variation in W04; and a no-rewrite boundary. Governing rule card: consistent rubric application without replacing learner work. Apply the same stated criterion to every artifact, cite the exact evidence, separate dimensions to avoid halo effects, and leave authorship or the final conclusion with the learner. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.",
  "runDisclosure": "We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-048 for “help students organize evidence for both sides of a debate” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 3 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.",
  "prompt": "Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-048. Task: help students organize evidence for both sides of a debate. Context: Students will sort a supplied evidence packet into competing claims, warrants, counterarguments, and limitations. Fictional source facts: fictional learner artifacts LFT-048-W01 through LFT-048-W04; rubric criteria R1–R5; passages P2 and P7 as admissible evidence; an unsupported conclusion in W03; a stylistic variation in W04; and a no-rewrite boundary. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: consistent rubric application without replacing learner work. Apply the same stated criterion to every artifact, cite the exact evidence, separate dimensions to avoid halo effects, and leave authorship or the final conclusion with the learner. Produce a criterion-level feedback table, evidence citations, and next-step prompt. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: An argument map will be checked for source fidelity, balanced coverage, and explicit claim-evidence links.",
  "firstResult": "Frozen first response LFT-048 produced a criterion-level feedback table, evidence citations, and next-step prompt for the task “help students organize evidence for both sides of a debate.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: cite P2/P7 for LFT-048-W01, diagnose the unsupported W03 conclusion, score W04 by the same R1–R5 criteria, and preserve the no-rewrite boundary. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-048-ROW1 reads: “LFT-048-W01 | cite P2/P7 for LFT-048-W01, diagnose the unsupported W03 conclusion, score W04 by the same R1–R5 criteria, and preserve the no-rewrite boundary | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Debate reasoning content accuracy [LFT-048] and Debate reasoning learner adaptation [LFT-048]. The audit found concrete failures: for Debate reasoning objective fit [LFT-048], the saved draft did not connect LFT-048-W03 to the full boundary of “help students organize evidence for both sides of a debate”; for Debate reasoning evidence traceability [LFT-048], the saved draft gave the central LFT-048-W03 decision no source-to-output locator; for Debate reasoning safety and access [LFT-048], the saved draft left the criterion-level feedback table, evidence citations, and next-step prompt without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.",
  "correctionPrompt": "Correct only these detected LFT-048 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Debate reasoning objective fit [LFT-048] — the draft did not connect LFT-048-W03 to the full boundary of “help students organize evidence for both sides of a debate”; 2) Debate reasoning evidence traceability [LFT-048] — the draft gave the central LFT-048-W03 decision no source-to-output locator; 3) Debate reasoning safety and access [LFT-048] — the draft left the criterion-level feedback table, evidence citations, and next-step prompt without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.",
  "finalResult": "Corrected response LFT-048 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: cite P2/P7 for LFT-048-W01, diagnose the unsupported W03 conclusion, score W04 by the same R1–R5 criteria, and preserve the no-rewrite boundary. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-048-ROW1 reads: “LFT-048-W01 | cite P2/P7 for LFT-048-W01, diagnose the unsupported W03 conclusion, score W04 by the same R1–R5 criteria, and preserve the no-rewrite boundary | evidence locator: LFT-048-W01 | static status: 6/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Debate reasoning evidence traceability [LFT-048]. The frozen final text passed Debate reasoning content accuracy [LFT-048], Debate reasoning learner adaptation [LFT-048], and Debate reasoning evidence traceability [LFT-048] and still failed Debate reasoning objective fit [LFT-048] and Debate reasoning safety and access [LFT-048]. The final criterion-level feedback table, evidence citations, and next-step prompt therefore earned 6/10 from 3 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.",
  "checks": [
    {
      "name": "Debate reasoning objective fit [LFT-048]",
      "firstPass": false,
      "finalPass": false,
      "evidence": "LFT-048 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Debate reasoning objective fit [LFT-048].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-048-W03, the declared Debate reasoning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."
    },
    {
      "name": "Debate reasoning content accuracy [LFT-048]",
      "firstPass": true,
      "finalPass": true,
      "evidence": "LFT-048 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Debate reasoning content accuracy [LFT-048].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-048-W03, the declared Debate reasoning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."
    },
    {
      "name": "Debate reasoning learner adaptation [LFT-048]",
      "firstPass": true,
      "finalPass": true,
      "evidence": "LFT-048 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Debate reasoning learner adaptation [LFT-048].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-048-W03, the declared Debate reasoning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."
    },
    {
      "name": "Debate reasoning evidence traceability [LFT-048]",
      "firstPass": false,
      "finalPass": true,
      "evidence": "LFT-048 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Debate reasoning evidence traceability [LFT-048].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-048-W03, the declared Debate reasoning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."
    },
    {
      "name": "Debate reasoning safety and access [LFT-048]",
      "firstPass": false,
      "finalPass": false,
      "evidence": "LFT-048 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Debate reasoning safety and access [LFT-048].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-048-W03, the declared Debate reasoning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."
    }
  ],
  "initialScore": 4,
  "score": 6,
  "verdict": "mixed",
  "recommended": false,
  "whatWorked": [
    "LFT-048 kept “help students organize evidence for both sides of a debate” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.",
    "LFT-048 made the central handling—cite P2/P7 for LFT-048-W01, diagnose the unsupported W03 conclusion, score W04 by the same R1–R5 criteria, and preserve the no-rewrite boundary—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.",
    "LFT-048 earned final passes for Debate reasoning content accuracy [LFT-048] and Debate reasoning learner adaptation [LFT-048] under the same frozen scoring rules."
  ],
  "whatFailed": [
    "LFT-048 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Debate reasoning objective fit [LFT-048]; the record leaves that final failure visible.",
    "LFT-048 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Debate reasoning safety and access [LFT-048]; the record leaves that final failure visible."
  ],
  "evidencePlan": "An argument map will be checked for source fidelity, balanced coverage, and explicit claim-evidence links.",
  "evidenceNotes": [
    "LFT-048 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.",
    "LFT-048 scores are arithmetic: 2 first-pass checks × 2 = 4/10; 3 final-pass checks × 2 = 6/10.",
    "LFT-048 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—An argument map will be checked for source fidelity, balanced coverage, and explicit claim-evidence links.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."
  ],
  "limitations": [
    "LFT-048 is a synthetic benchmark, so its mixed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Debate reasoning fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.",
    "LFT-048 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."
  ]
}