Learning · Evidence record
Which AI Reading Adaptations Could Support a Learner with Dyslexia — What the Completed 10/10 Test Found
The completed LFT-008 synthetic field test reached 10/10 after one failure-only correction: 5 of five static checks passed for Reading access, while 0 checks remained unresolved.
- Exact prompts and outputs
- One correction only
- Synthetic inputs disclosed
01 · The assignment
The task
adapt a reading lesson for a learner with dyslexia
02 · Scope before score
Test disclosures
Input disclosure
Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-008: The AI will restructure a dense reading activity using shorter segments, explicit vocabulary, and comprehension pauses. Source facts: fictional passage LFT-008-R1 of 420 words; required ideas I1–I5; target phonics or vocabulary set V1–V6; segment limit 30 words; learner preference for numbered steps; and protected quotation LFT-008-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-008 for “adapt a reading lesson for a learner with dyslexia” 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-008. Task: adapt a reading lesson for a learner with dyslexia. Context: The AI will restructure a dense reading activity using shorter segments, explicit vocabulary, and comprehension pauses. Fictional source facts: fictional passage LFT-008-R1 of 420 words; required ideas I1–I5; target phonics or vocabulary set V1–V6; segment limit 30 words; learner preference for numbered steps; and protected quotation LFT-008-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: An accessibility specialist will review the adapted lesson against a predefined support checklist.04 · Baseline preserved
First result
The first response is retained before scoring or correction.
Frozen first response LFT-008 produced an accessible lesson sequence, fidelity table, and learner-choice checkpoints for the task “adapt a reading lesson for a learner with dyslexia.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: split LFT-008-R1 at idea boundaries, preserve I1–I5 and Q3, introduce V1–V6 before practice, and offer a pause after each 30-word segment. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-008-ROW1 reads: “LFT-008-R1 | split LFT-008-R1 at idea boundaries, preserve I1–I5 and Q3, introduce V1–V6 before practice, and offer a pause after each 30-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 Reading access content accuracy [LFT-008], Reading access learner adaptation [LFT-008], and Reading access evidence traceability [LFT-008]. The audit found concrete failures: for Reading access objective fit [LFT-008], the saved draft did not connect LFT-008-Q3 to the full boundary of “adapt a reading lesson for a learner with dyslexia”; for Reading access safety and access [LFT-008], 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-008 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Reading access objective fit [LFT-008] — the draft did not connect LFT-008-Q3 to the full boundary of “adapt a reading lesson for a learner with dyslexia”; 2) Reading access safety and access [LFT-008] — 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-008 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: split LFT-008-R1 at idea boundaries, preserve I1–I5 and Q3, introduce V1–V6 before practice, and offer a pause after each 30-word segment. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-008-ROW1 reads: “LFT-008-R1 | split LFT-008-R1 at idea boundaries, preserve I1–I5 and Q3, introduce V1–V6 before practice, and offer a pause after each 30-word segment | evidence locator: LFT-008-R1 | static status: 10/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Reading access objective fit [LFT-008] and Reading access safety and access [LFT-008]. The frozen final text passed Reading access objective fit [LFT-008], Reading access content accuracy [LFT-008], Reading access learner adaptation [LFT-008], Reading access evidence traceability [LFT-008], and Reading access safety and access [LFT-008]. All five declared dimensions had inspectable support after the one correction. The final accessible lesson sequence, fidelity table, and learner-choice checkpoints therefore earned 10/10 from 5 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: 10/10
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reading access objective fit [LFT-008] | Fail | Pass | LFT-008 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Reading access objective fit [LFT-008].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-008-Q3, the declared Reading access rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Reading access content accuracy [LFT-008] | Pass | Pass | LFT-008 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Reading access content accuracy [LFT-008].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-008-Q3, the declared Reading access rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Reading access learner adaptation [LFT-008] | Pass | Pass | LFT-008 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Reading access learner adaptation [LFT-008].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-008-Q3, the declared Reading access rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Reading access evidence traceability [LFT-008] | Pass | Pass | LFT-008 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Reading access evidence traceability [LFT-008].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-008-Q3, the declared Reading access rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Reading access safety and access [LFT-008] | Fail | Pass | LFT-008 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Reading access safety and access [LFT-008].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-008-Q3, the declared Reading access 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-008 kept “adapt a reading lesson for a learner with dyslexia” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.
- LFT-008 made the central handling—split LFT-008-R1 at idea boundaries, preserve I1–I5 and Q3, introduce V1–V6 before practice, and offer a pause after each 30-word segment—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.
- LFT-008 earned final passes for Reading access objective fit [LFT-008] and Reading access content accuracy [LFT-008] under the same frozen scoring rules.
What failed or remained weak
- LFT-008’s first draft failed Reading access objective fit [LFT-008]; one correction repaired it, but the initial defect remains part of the published audit trail.
09 · Inspectable record
Evidence notes
An accessibility specialist will review the adapted lesson against a predefined support checklist.
- LFT-008 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.
- LFT-008 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 5 final-pass checks × 2 = 10/10.
- LFT-008 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—An accessibility specialist will review the adapted lesson against a predefined support checklist.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome.
10 · Boundary of the claim
Limitations
- LFT-008 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Reading access fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.
- LFT-008 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.