STEM PRACTICE AND EVIDENCE WORKBENCH
Group anonymous evidence opportunities around proposed misconceptions and audit source variety, direct evidence, and readiness.
Review output
Load the worked example to inspect realistic inputs, or enter anonymous classroom or laboratory evidence. Results remain in this browser tab until you copy or download them.
Transparent method
A locally ready plan has at least the entered number of distinct source rows, at least the entered total opportunities, and one or more sources coded direct. Opportunity counts are summed within each proposed misconception. A repeated claim is compared with all three conditions, so high volume cannot compensate for missing source variety. Supported means the planning claim matches this bounded structural screen. It does not confirm that the proposed misconception exists or that evidence sources are valid, accessible, independent, or aligned. Review actual explanations, alternative interpretations, task demands, language and representation access, sampling, recency, and what instructional response will follow.
Confirm the question, source, units, notation, response coding, model assumptions, and review threshold. Keep an unchanged copy of the original evidence.
Run the worked example, inspect every intermediate row, and compare it with a hand calculation, diagram, representation, or approved subject method.
Record the method, assumptions, units, classifications, and flagged rows. Verify the editable report independently before educational or laboratory use.
How to interpret the result
Use before a formative assessment cycle when a teaching team wants several ways to test a plausible explanation for errors. The workbench distinguishes direct reasoning evidence from indirect observation. It does not diagnose a learner, validate an item, identify causation, interpret written responses, select an intervention, or authorize a consequential decision.
The fraction-size plan includes two direct sources and five opportunities, so its ready claim is supported. The force-and-motion plan also meets both numerical rules and includes a direct explanation source, making its entered review claim a conflict worth checking. The final plan has five opportunities but only one source, so review is supported.
A locally ready plan has at least the entered number of distinct source rows, at least the entered total opportunities, and one or more sources coded direct. Opportunity counts are summed within each proposed misconception. A repeated claim is compared with all three conditions, so high volume cannot compensate for missing source variety.
Supported means the planning claim matches this bounded structural screen. It does not confirm that the proposed misconception exists or that evidence sources are valid, accessible, independent, or aligned. Review actual explanations, alternative interpretations, task demands, language and representation access, sampling, recency, and what instructional response will follow.
Do not convert an error pattern into a fixed learner label, count several versions of one item as independent sources, treat observation alone as direct reasoning, collect personal data unnecessarily, use quantity as a substitute for quality, or plan evidence without a response and reassessment step. Preserve uncertainty and inspect reasoning.
Learning boundary
This browser-local workbench applies only the disclosed rules. It cannot diagnose a learner, certify an experiment, or replace teacher, laboratory, and safety judgment.
Review checklist
Practical questions
No. Processing occurs in the current browser tab. Avoid personal information and retain authoritative records only in the approved school system.
No. It describes entered evidence under one disclosed rule. Review reasoning, uncertainty, access, and several evidence sources.
Treat it as an editable calculation aid. Show your own reasoning, cite required sources, and follow course and academic-integrity rules.
YOUR NIRMION
