Learning · Evidence record
Adapting a Reading Passage Without Lowering the Ideas: Four or More Checks Passed After One Correction
The completed LFT-055 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Accessible Reading, while 1 check remained unresolved.
- Exact prompts and outputs
- One correction only
- Synthetic inputs disclosed
01 · The assignment
The task
adapt a reading passage for accessibility while preserving its ideas
02 · Scope before score
Test disclosures
Input disclosure
Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-055: An educator will provide an informational text, reading target, essential concepts, protected terms, and a list of allowable supports. Source facts: fictional passage LFT-055-R1 of 420 words; required ideas I1–I5; target phonics or vocabulary set V1–V6; segment limit 26 words; learner preference for numbered steps; and protected quotation LFT-055-Q3. Governing rule card: idea fidelity plus the declared accessibility constraints. Preserve every required idea, value, date, term, and assessment demand while applying the declared access constraint; never treat shorter wording as permission to delete meaning. 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.
Run disclosure
We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-055 for “adapt a reading passage for accessibility while preserving its ideas” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 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.
- Evidence mode
- Synthetic benchmark
- Run environment
- Codex multi-agent session
- Model disclosure
- Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session
03 · Verbatim input
Exact first prompt
The recorded session received the following prompt without silent additions.
Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-055. Task: adapt a reading passage for accessibility while preserving its ideas. Context: An educator will provide an informational text, reading target, essential concepts, protected terms, and a list of allowable supports. Fictional source facts: fictional passage LFT-055-R1 of 420 words; required ideas I1–I5; target phonics or vocabulary set V1–V6; segment limit 26 words; learner preference for numbered steps; and protected quotation LFT-055-Q3. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: idea fidelity plus the declared accessibility constraints. Preserve every required idea, value, date, term, and assessment demand while applying the declared access constraint; never treat shorter wording as permission to delete meaning. Produce an accessible lesson sequence, fidelity table, and learner-choice checkpoints. 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: A proposition-level comparison and readability review will verify concept retention, factual fidelity, vocabulary support, and omissions.04 · Baseline preserved
First result
The first response is retained before scoring or correction.
Frozen first response LFT-055 produced an accessible lesson sequence, fidelity table, and learner-choice checkpoints for the task “adapt a reading passage for accessibility while preserving its ideas.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: split LFT-055-R1 at idea boundaries, preserve I1–I5 and Q3, introduce V1–V6 before practice, and offer a pause after each 26-word segment. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-055-ROW1 reads: “LFT-055-R1 | split LFT-055-R1 at idea boundaries, preserve I1–I5 and Q3, introduce V1–V6 before practice, and offer a pause after each 26-word segment | 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 Accessible Reading objective fit [LFT-055], Accessible Reading content accuracy [LFT-055], and Accessible Reading learner adaptation [LFT-055]. The audit found concrete failures: for Accessible Reading evidence traceability [LFT-055], the saved draft gave the central LFT-055-Q3 decision no source-to-output locator; for Accessible Reading safety and access [LFT-055], the saved draft left the accessible lesson sequence, fidelity table, and learner-choice checkpoints 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.Initial score: 6/10
05 · One pass only
Exact correction prompt
Only this single correction was allowed; there was no second repair pass.
Correct only these detected LFT-055 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Accessible Reading evidence traceability [LFT-055] — the draft gave the central LFT-055-Q3 decision no source-to-output locator; 2) Accessible Reading safety and access [LFT-055] — the draft left the accessible lesson sequence, fidelity table, and learner-choice checkpoints without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.06 · Corrected output
Corrected final result
Corrected response LFT-055 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: split LFT-055-R1 at idea boundaries, preserve I1–I5 and Q3, introduce V1–V6 before practice, and offer a pause after each 26-word segment. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-055-ROW1 reads: “LFT-055-R1 | split LFT-055-R1 at idea boundaries, preserve I1–I5 and Q3, introduce V1–V6 before practice, and offer a pause after each 26-word segment | evidence locator: LFT-055-R1 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Accessible Reading evidence traceability [LFT-055]. The frozen final text passed Accessible Reading objective fit [LFT-055], Accessible Reading content accuracy [LFT-055], Accessible Reading learner adaptation [LFT-055], and Accessible Reading evidence traceability [LFT-055] and still failed Accessible Reading safety and access [LFT-055]. The final accessible lesson sequence, fidelity table, and learner-choice checkpoints therefore earned 8/10 from 4 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.Final score: 8/10
07 · Five checks, two points each
Five-check record
The first and final statuses are textual as well as color coded. Each final pass is worth two points; the displayed verdict is tied to the final total.
| Check | First | Final | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accessible Reading objective fit [LFT-055] | Pass | Pass | LFT-055 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Accessible Reading objective fit [LFT-055].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-055-Q3, the declared Accessible Reading rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Accessible Reading content accuracy [LFT-055] | Pass | Pass | LFT-055 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Accessible Reading content accuracy [LFT-055].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-055-Q3, the declared Accessible Reading rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Accessible Reading learner adaptation [LFT-055] | Pass | Pass | LFT-055 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Accessible Reading learner adaptation [LFT-055].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-055-Q3, the declared Accessible Reading rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Accessible Reading evidence traceability [LFT-055] | Fail | Pass | LFT-055 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Accessible Reading evidence traceability [LFT-055].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-055-Q3, the declared Accessible Reading rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Accessible Reading safety and access [LFT-055] | Fail | Fail | LFT-055 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Accessible Reading safety and access [LFT-055].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-055-Q3, the declared Accessible Reading rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
08 · No cleanup by omission
What worked—and what failed
What worked
- LFT-055 kept “adapt a reading passage for accessibility while preserving its ideas” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.
- LFT-055 made the central handling—split LFT-055-R1 at idea boundaries, preserve I1–I5 and Q3, introduce V1–V6 before practice, and offer a pause after each 26-word segment—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.
- LFT-055 earned final passes for Accessible Reading objective fit [LFT-055] and Accessible Reading content accuracy [LFT-055] under the same frozen scoring rules.
What failed or remained weak
- LFT-055 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Accessible Reading safety and access [LFT-055]; the record leaves that final failure visible.
09 · Inspectable record
Evidence notes
A proposition-level comparison and readability review will verify concept retention, factual fidelity, vocabulary support, and omissions.
- LFT-055 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.
- LFT-055 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.
- LFT-055 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A proposition-level comparison and readability review will verify concept retention, factual fidelity, vocabulary support, and omissions.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome.
10 · Boundary of the claim
Limitations
- LFT-055 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Accessible Reading fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.
- LFT-055 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.