Does Edcafe AI judge a learner's own words by meaning?
Edcafe AI passes this own-words meaning-grading case. It marked Learner D Excellent Understanding Demonstrated, and the report showed a 0% average across four submissions while three learners were labelled excellent, so the average does not reflect this answer's wording.
1 of 1 test case passed
Every test case in this scenario has a result.
The test case
Each test case is judged on its own: Pass, Fail, Not gradable, or Untested. The scenario result above is based on this test case.
A correct answer in the learner's own wordingPassEvidence
“In a series circuit, all lamps share one path, so if one lamp breaks, the whole circuit stops working and all lamps go out. In a parallel circuit, each lamp has its own branch and receives the full voltage from the battery. This keeps all lamps equally bright, and if one lamp breaks, the others continue working normally.”
The response correctly describes the effects of a broken filament in series and parallel circuits, providing a clear and accurate explanation.
Transcribed from Proof 1 · Screenshot
| ✓ | Expected: A differently worded answer that fully states the required meaning should still be fully correct.Found: The answer was marked clear and accurate, and the report gave the learner an Excellent Understanding Demonstrated label. |
It had to judge a written answer by meaning, not by matching the model wording. The feedback directly under question 9 says the response is clear and accurate, and the report labels Learner D Excellent Understanding Demonstrated; the 0% average covers four submissions, including other excellent ones.
Question feedback. The feedback under question 9 says the response is clear and accurate.
Report label. The report labels Learner D Excellent Understanding Demonstrated.
Model answer shown. The product also shows a model answer beneath the feedback on question 9.
Overall average. The report shows a 0% average across four submissions.
Configuration and setup
How this tool was set up for the run and what the test needed in place. Each row is a fact from the run's records; a fact the records do not hold is left out, not guessed.
How this scenario is graded
How we decide Pass, Fail and Not gradable. The same rules apply to every tool tested on this scenario.
Each test case gets one result per tool: Pass, Fail or Not gradable. A test case we haven't run yet shows Untested. There are no partial results.
- Pass: the tool did everything the test expected, and nothing it said contradicts the correct answer.
- Fail: at least one expected behaviour clearly didn't happen; the test case's result says which one and quotes the tool.
- Not gradable: our evidence couldn't settle the outcome (for example a record we needed is missing). It is never counted as a fail, and the test case's result says what's missing.
Where this sits in the benchmark
This page is one cell of a larger study: one tool, one scenario. Only this benchmark's frame appears here.
| Level | Name | Scope |
|---|---|---|
| Benchmark | Quiz Generation → | 15 scenarios · 10 tools |
| Capability | Grading → | |
| Scenario | The learner answers correctly in their own words → | |
| Tool | Edcafe AI → |
Global scenario definition → · Global capability definition → · Edcafe AI product page →
History of this result
What has happened to this result since it was first published. Runs and grades are never overwritten: a retest or a re-grade publishes a new result and keeps the earlier one readable.
Act on this result
Nothing filed here edits the run or the grade. A challenge opens a review, and a review can produce a new run or a re-grade — which becomes the current result and leaves this one in the history.
You run the same kind of test against your own setup and get the same behaviour.
Agree →Yours behaves differently. Tell us what you got, with a screenshot if you have one.
Disagree →Something here is wrong — a reference value, a transcription, a grade.
Report an issue →Tell us what changed and we schedule a rerun of the failing test case. The old result stays as history.
Vendor notice →The same record is available as structured data through the AI Demos MCP server, with the counts, the coverage and every per-test-case reason carried as fields.
Verify the proof files
These files support this result. Open a file to inspect the original evidence.
File fingerprints (SHA-256)
A fingerprint identifies the exact file used for this result.