Learning · Evidence record
Turning Lecture Notes into Retrieval Flashcards with AI — What the Completed 8/10 Test Found
The completed LFT-020 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Retrieval practice, while 1 check remained unresolved.
- Exact prompts and outputs
- One correction only
- Synthetic inputs disclosed
01 · The assignment
The task
turn lecture notes into effective retrieval flashcards
02 · Scope before score
Test disclosures
Input disclosure
Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-020: The AI will convert a short set of psychology notes into focused question-and-answer flashcards. Source facts: notes LFT-020-N01–N08 on cellular respiration; glycolysis, Krebs, ATP; ambiguous N06; deck limit 12; no yes/no cards. Governing rule card: one retrievable idea, accurate answer, source locator, and useful cue per card. Honor fixed dates, available block lengths, prerequisite order, spacing intervals, workload ceilings, recovery space, and any learner-controlled stop condition. 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-020 for “turn lecture notes into effective retrieval flashcards” 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-020. Task: turn lecture notes into effective retrieval flashcards. Context: The AI will convert a short set of psychology notes into focused question-and-answer flashcards. Fictional source facts: notes LFT-020-N01–N08 on cellular respiration; glycolysis, Krebs, ATP; ambiguous N06; deck limit 12; no yes/no cards. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: one retrievable idea, accurate answer, source locator, and useful cue per card. Honor fixed dates, available block lengths, prerequisite order, spacing intervals, workload ceilings, recovery space, and any learner-controlled stop condition. Produce a retrieval flashcard deck, source map, and card-quality audit. 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 card audit will check atomicity, answerability, source fidelity, and coverage of the supplied notes.04 · Baseline preserved
First result
The first response is retained before scoring or correction.
Frozen first response LFT-020 produced a retrieval flashcard deck, source map, and card-quality audit for “turn lecture notes into effective retrieval flashcards.” Its first artifact row read “LFT-020-N06 | create single-fact cards, link glycolysis to N02, separate inputs from outputs, and flag N06 | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named ambiguous N06 and cards that test multiple facts and recorded a disposition. The rule cell verified one retrievable idea, accurate answer, source locator, and useful cue per card. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Retrieval practice objective fit [LFT-020], Retrieval practice content accuracy [LFT-020], and Retrieval practice learner adaptation [LFT-020]. It found for Retrieval practice evidence traceability [LFT-020], the draft gave LFT-020-N06 no source locator; for Retrieval practice safety and access [LFT-020], the draft left the retrieval flashcard deck, source map, and card-quality audit without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.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-020 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Retrieval practice evidence traceability [LFT-020] — the draft gave LFT-020-N06 no source locator; 2) Retrieval practice safety and access [LFT-020] — the draft left the retrieval flashcard deck, source map, and card-quality audit without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker.06 · Corrected output
Corrected final result
Corrected response LFT-020 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: create single-fact cards, link glycolysis to N02, separate inputs from outputs, and flag N06. Its corrected row read “LFT-020-N06 | rule: one retrievable idea, accurate answer, source locator, and useful cue per card | decision: create single-fact cards, link glycolysis to N02, separate inputs from outputs, and flag N06 | static status: 8/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Retrieval practice evidence traceability [LFT-020]. The final audit passed Retrieval practice objective fit [LFT-020], Retrieval practice content accuracy [LFT-020], Retrieval practice learner adaptation [LFT-020], and Retrieval practice evidence traceability [LFT-020]. It still lacked Retrieval practice safety and access [LFT-020]; those failures remain visible. The retrieval flashcard deck, source map, and card-quality audit earned 8/10 from 4 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retrieval practice objective fit [LFT-020] | Pass | Pass | LFT-020 static check 1 inspected “Retrieval practice objective fit [LFT-020]” against LFT-020-N06, the rule “one retrievable idea, accurate answer, source locator, and useful cue per card,” and the saved retrieval flashcard deck, source map, and card-quality audit. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome. |
| Retrieval practice content accuracy [LFT-020] | Pass | Pass | LFT-020 static check 2 inspected “Retrieval practice content accuracy [LFT-020]” against LFT-020-N06, the rule “one retrievable idea, accurate answer, source locator, and useful cue per card,” and the saved retrieval flashcard deck, source map, and card-quality audit. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome. |
| Retrieval practice learner adaptation [LFT-020] | Pass | Pass | LFT-020 static check 3 inspected “Retrieval practice learner adaptation [LFT-020]” against LFT-020-N06, the rule “one retrievable idea, accurate answer, source locator, and useful cue per card,” and the saved retrieval flashcard deck, source map, and card-quality audit. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome. |
| Retrieval practice evidence traceability [LFT-020] | Fail | Pass | LFT-020 static check 4 inspected “Retrieval practice evidence traceability [LFT-020]” against LFT-020-N06, the rule “one retrievable idea, accurate answer, source locator, and useful cue per card,” and the saved retrieval flashcard deck, source map, and card-quality audit. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome. |
| Retrieval practice safety and access [LFT-020] | Fail | Fail | LFT-020 static check 5 inspected “Retrieval practice safety and access [LFT-020]” against LFT-020-N06, the rule “one retrievable idea, accurate answer, source locator, and useful cue per card,” and the saved retrieval flashcard deck, source map, and card-quality audit. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome. |
08 · No cleanup by omission
What worked—and what failed
What worked
- LFT-020 bounded “turn lecture notes into effective retrieval flashcards” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.
- LFT-020 exposed LFT-020-N06—create single-fact cards, link glycolysis to N02, separate inputs from outputs, and flag N06—inside the saved retrieval flashcard deck, source map, and card-quality audit.
- LFT-020 earned inspectable passes for Retrieval practice objective fit [LFT-020] and Retrieval practice content accuracy [LFT-020] under the unchanged rubric.
What failed or remained weak
- LFT-020 still lacked saved-text evidence for Retrieval practice safety and access [LFT-020]; that failure remains published.
09 · Inspectable record
Evidence notes
A card audit will check atomicity, answerability, source fidelity, and coverage of the supplied notes.
- LFT-020 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.
- LFT-020 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.
- LFT-020 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A card audit will check atomicity, answerability, source fidelity, and coverage of the supplied notes.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome.
10 · Boundary of the claim
Limitations
- LFT-020 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Retrieval practice fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.
- LFT-020 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.