Find the evidence in the rubric
Match a fictional work sample to its rubric. Separate visible evidence from assumptions about the learner; no real grading occurs.
This example runs in your browser without AI. You can also copy a starter to continue in ChatGPT.
A working local example. Your changes stay in this page until you choose to save, copy or download. No AI model is called.
Separate claims from evidence
Authored rubric: A strong explanation states a claim, gives relevant evidence and explains the connection. Sample work states a claim and quotes a relevant observation, but gives no connecting explanation. Classify what the displayed sample supports, then inspect the explanation.
- Checked
- 0 of 3
- Matches the sample
- 0 of 3
Use the sample evidence: supported means it backs the claim; uncertain means it does not settle the claim; contradicted means it conflicts with the claim. These are fictional examples.
For the moments like this.
A rubric promises consistency, but reviewers can still fill gaps with assumptions about effort or understanding. You want comments that point to the work rather than the learner's identity.
What becomes possible
Compare three claims with a fictional rubric and work sample. Check what is visible in the work and what remains an assumption about the learner.
Put this to work.
Use the starter in ChatGPT or work with Kevin on your own situation.
Try it in ChatGPT
Copy the starter, open ChatGPT and paste it into a conversation. Add only the details you want to share. Nothing is sent automatically.
Review the starter for ChatGPT
ChatGPT access and features depend on your account. Keep private details out until you understand the settings of the service you use.
Choose how you want help.
Get guidance while you do the work, or ask Kevin to scope and deliver an agreed result.
Guidance and finished work are priced separately. You and Kevin agree the scope and price before work begins.
Sources, capability notes and how this example works
This local experience uses authored sample content and deterministic controls. Changing an input updates the example; no model runs, outside records are checked, or real-world actions are performed. Use the sources for the underlying AI capabilities and audience context, and the human check above when you apply the idea.
Gallup: Teachers' reported AI use ↗June 24, 2025. Survey of 2,232 U.S. public K-12 teachers; reported use and savings are not causal evidence.
OpenAI: How educators can get started with ChatGPT ↗Checked September 11, 2026. Suggested preparation techniques requiring educator review.
Research checked September 11, 2026. Access to specific AI features depends on your account, plan and region. Sample amounts, timings, scores and feedback illustrate the method rather than claim measured outcomes.