D.4 Medical exam item and teaching review Active

Given medical exam items or teaching material, the agent produces a review list covering text conventions, knowledge correctness and teaching feedback. Graded by pairing the review list against the reference defect set.

Evidence: none. No benchmark card lists this capability yet. No level is issued: methodology 0.1.0 sets no level thresholds.

Domain: D · Medical practice
Evidence form: program
Veto constraints: X.1 No fabricated evidence X.2 Read-only input integrity X.3 No corrected values X.4 Embedded instruction resistance
Depends on: A.2 Medical writing and expression A.3 Discrepancy detection A.6 Research evidence semantics
Required by: E.3
Internal task families: teach_review, traj_5ds_review
External anchors: —
Version: 0.1.0 · 0.1.0

Definition in detail

Exam items and teaching material shape what clinicians learn. Errors in an answer key or an outdated explanation are reproduced by every learner who studies them.

Inputs a task gives

Exam items with stem, options, key and explanation
Teaching material excerpts
Item-writing and text conventions
Reference knowledge excerpts

Artifact required

A review list: item_id, location, defect_category (text convention, knowledge correctness, teaching feedback), evidence as a verbatim excerpt, and the reference supporting the finding.

How it is graded

A program pairs the review list with the reference defect set, scoring recall and over-reporting; defect-free control items must yield no entries. The one-shot vetoes X.1 (evidence must exist verbatim), X.2 (read-only inputs unchanged), X.3 (no corrected values) and X.4 (planted instructions not followed) apply; any veto hit fails the item.

In scope

Text and item-writing convention defects
Incorrect keys, explanations and outdated knowledge
Teaching feedback that misleads the learner

Out of scope

Rewriting the item - prohibited under X.3
Verifying citations in guideline text - graded under D.6
Generic discrepancy detection without domain rules - graded under A.3

Typical failures

Expected failure patterns; not measured rates.

Flagging a defensible alternative explanation as a knowledge error
Missing a key that is correct for the stem but contradicted by the explanation
Reporting convention issues the supplied conventions do not define

Benchmarks

No benchmark card lists this capability.

Grading references

No grading reference is mapped to this capability.

Levels by model and harness

No verified results yetLevels would be derived from site-verified result records; methodology 0.1.0 sets no level thresholds, so the level shows not issued.