{
  "category": "learning",
  "slug": "learning-poetry-close-reading",
  "title": "Are Multiple Interpretations Possible in AI-Supported Close Reading — Three of Five Checks Passed",
  "task": "support close reading without fixing one interpretation",
  "excerpt": "The completed LFT-030 synthetic field test stopped at 6/10: three of five Close reading checks passed after one correction, but Close reading evidence traceability [LFT-030] and Close reading safety and access [LFT-030] remained unsupported.",
  "tool": "Codex multi-agent session",
  "model": "Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session",
  "publishedAt": "2026-07-12T08:00:00+08:00",
  "durationMinutes": 0,
  "testMode": "Synthetic benchmark",
  "inputDisclosure": "Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-030: The AI will guide students to develop multiple evidence-based readings of an unfamiliar poem. Source facts: fictional learner work LFT-030-L01 through LFT-030-L05; objective O1; prerequisite P1; confidence ratings 1–5; one incorrect but plausible response L03; one unanswered item LFT-030-L05; and a no-answer-giveaway rule. Governing rule card: objective O1 alignment without giving away the final response. Align every step to the declared objective, use the supplied learner evidence, probe a plausible error before explaining, and leave unanswered work as the learner's next step. 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-030 for “support close reading without fixing one interpretation” 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-030. Task: support close reading without fixing one interpretation. Context: The AI will guide students to develop multiple evidence-based readings of an unfamiliar poem. Fictional source facts: fictional learner work LFT-030-L01 through LFT-030-L05; objective O1; prerequisite P1; confidence ratings 1–5; one incorrect but plausible response L03; one unanswered item LFT-030-L05; and a no-answer-giveaway rule. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: objective O1 alignment without giving away the final response. Align every step to the declared objective, use the supplied learner evidence, probe a plausible error before explaining, and leave unanswered work as the learner's next step. Produce a guided lesson sequence, response log, and criterion checklist. 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: Discussion transcripts will be coded for textual evidence, interpretive plurality, and unsupported certainty.",
  "firstResult": "Frozen first response LFT-030 produced a guided lesson sequence, response log, and criterion checklist for the task “support close reading without fixing one interpretation.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: probe LFT-030-L03 before explaining, connect the explanation to P1, and keep L05 open as the learner's next meaningful step. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-030-ROW1 reads: “LFT-030-L01 | probe LFT-030-L03 before explaining, connect the explanation to P1, and keep L05 open as the learner's next meaningful step | 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 Close reading objective fit [LFT-030] and Close reading content accuracy [LFT-030]. The audit found concrete failures: for Close reading learner adaptation [LFT-030], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the plausible misconception in LFT-030-L03 and unanswered L05 item; for Close reading evidence traceability [LFT-030], the saved draft gave the central LFT-030-L03 decision no source-to-output locator; for Close reading safety and access [LFT-030], the saved draft left the guided lesson sequence, response log, and criterion checklist 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-030 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Close reading learner adaptation [LFT-030] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the plausible misconception in LFT-030-L03 and unanswered L05 item; 2) Close reading evidence traceability [LFT-030] — the draft gave the central LFT-030-L03 decision no source-to-output locator; 3) Close reading safety and access [LFT-030] — the draft left the guided lesson sequence, response log, and criterion checklist without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.",
  "finalResult": "Corrected response LFT-030 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: probe LFT-030-L03 before explaining, connect the explanation to P1, and keep L05 open as the learner's next meaningful step. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-030-ROW1 reads: “LFT-030-L01 | probe LFT-030-L03 before explaining, connect the explanation to P1, and keep L05 open as the learner's next meaningful step | evidence locator: LFT-030-L01 | static status: 6/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Close reading learner adaptation [LFT-030]. The frozen final text passed Close reading objective fit [LFT-030], Close reading content accuracy [LFT-030], and Close reading learner adaptation [LFT-030] and still failed Close reading evidence traceability [LFT-030] and Close reading safety and access [LFT-030]. The final guided lesson sequence, response log, and criterion checklist 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": "Close reading objective fit [LFT-030]",
      "firstPass": true,
      "finalPass": true,
      "evidence": "LFT-030 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Close reading objective fit [LFT-030].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-030-L03, the declared Close reading rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."
    },
    {
      "name": "Close reading content accuracy [LFT-030]",
      "firstPass": true,
      "finalPass": true,
      "evidence": "LFT-030 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Close reading content accuracy [LFT-030].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-030-L03, the declared Close reading rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."
    },
    {
      "name": "Close reading learner adaptation [LFT-030]",
      "firstPass": false,
      "finalPass": true,
      "evidence": "LFT-030 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Close reading learner adaptation [LFT-030].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-030-L03, the declared Close reading rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."
    },
    {
      "name": "Close reading evidence traceability [LFT-030]",
      "firstPass": false,
      "finalPass": false,
      "evidence": "LFT-030 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Close reading evidence traceability [LFT-030].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-030-L03, the declared Close reading rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."
    },
    {
      "name": "Close reading safety and access [LFT-030]",
      "firstPass": false,
      "finalPass": false,
      "evidence": "LFT-030 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Close reading safety and access [LFT-030].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-030-L03, the declared Close reading 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-030 kept “support close reading without fixing one interpretation” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.",
    "LFT-030 made the central handling—probe LFT-030-L03 before explaining, connect the explanation to P1, and keep L05 open as the learner's next meaningful step—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.",
    "LFT-030 earned final passes for Close reading objective fit [LFT-030] and Close reading content accuracy [LFT-030] under the same frozen scoring rules."
  ],
  "whatFailed": [
    "LFT-030 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Close reading evidence traceability [LFT-030]; the record leaves that final failure visible.",
    "LFT-030 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Close reading safety and access [LFT-030]; the record leaves that final failure visible."
  ],
  "evidencePlan": "Discussion transcripts will be coded for textual evidence, interpretive plurality, and unsupported certainty.",
  "evidenceNotes": [
    "LFT-030 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.",
    "LFT-030 scores are arithmetic: 2 first-pass checks × 2 = 4/10; 3 final-pass checks × 2 = 6/10.",
    "LFT-030 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—Discussion transcripts will be coded for textual evidence, interpretive plurality, and unsupported certainty.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."
  ],
  "limitations": [
    "LFT-030 is a synthetic benchmark, so its mixed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Close reading fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.",
    "LFT-030 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."
  ]
}