Learning Target Authoring Guide

Purpose-Driven Learning Target Authoring Guide

What This Skill Does

This skill encodes an original practitioner framework developed by Gareth Manning, educator, curriculum designer, and learning systems designer. Unlike skills in other domains, it is not drawn from peer-reviewed research traditions. It is grounded in serious engagement with learning science, original curriculum design work, and active classroom testing. It is included because the methodology is coherent, transferable, and genuinely useful — and because intellectual honesty requires distinguishing practitioner frameworks from research-validated approaches.

This skill guides an educator or curriculum designer through writing a complete, coherent set of learning targets (LTs) for a competency — from the upstream question of whether the competency is right, through knowledge type classification, decomposition into 2-3 LTs, to writing band-level statements (Type 1 and Type 2) or observation indicator sets (Type 3) that are developmental, precise, and assessable. Learning targets are the bridge between a broad competency ("Critical Thinking") and what a teacher can actually observe and assess in a student's work. Without well-written LTs, competency-based education degenerates into either vague impressions or checklist-style task completion. The v4.0 methodology introduces a mandatory classification step — Knowledge Type — that determines the assessment instrument BEFORE any band statements are written. This addresses the single most common failure mode in competency-based wellbeing and project curricula: dispositional goals assessed through rubrics, creating the illusion of measurement without the substance. The output is a complete LT set ready for use in planning and reporting, with quality checks built into the process. The methodology draws on Black & Wiliam (1998) — clear learning intentions are a prerequisite for effective formative assessment — and extends Wiggins & McTighe's (2005) backwards design with Manning's upstream "why" layer: before asking "What should students learn?" the process asks "Why does this competency matter for our mission?"

Critical distinction: LTs describe destinations, not content. A band statement describes what a student can do by the end of a developmental period — it does not prescribe what is taught to get there. Content specificity lives in KUD charts and unit plans. The LT constrains what is assessed; it does not constrain what is taught. An LT that appears to leave content unspecified is working correctly — the KUD chart is the right place to make content explicit.

Evidence Foundation

Manning developed the Learning Target Authoring Guide through iterative curriculum design, documented in v4.0 (2026). The methodology addresses a specific problem: most competency-based curricula have poorly written learning targets. Common failure modes include: targets that use unobservable verbs ("Understands the water cycle" — how do you observe understanding?), targets that are topic lists disguised as competencies ("Knows the causes of WWI" — this is content, not capability), targets that lack developmental progression (the same statement at every band level with "simple" and "complex" bolted on), compound targets that assess multiple things simultaneously ("Analyses and evaluates sources to construct an argument" — which part is the student struggling with?), and — the most insidious — dispositional targets assessed through rubrics (a rubric scored on a scenario task does not tell you whether a student has developed the disposition; it tells you whether they can perform it when asked). Black & Wiliam (1998) established that effective formative assessment requires clear, shared learning intentions. If the teacher doesn't know precisely what they're looking for, they cannot provide useful feedback, and students cannot self-assess. LTs are the unit of clarity: specific enough to assess, broad enough to apply across multiple projects and contexts. Wiggins & McTighe (2005) provide the backwards design framework, which Manning extends by adding an upstream "why" layer. Standard UBD starts with given curriculum goals. Purpose-driven backwards design starts with the school's mission and asks: Why does this competency exist in our curriculum? What would we lose if we removed it? This upstream questioning prevents the accumulation of competencies that nobody can justify but nobody dares remove. Bloom's taxonomy (1956, revised 2001) provides the verb hierarchy that constrains LT writing: observable, assessable verbs (identify, describe, compare, explain, justify, analyse, evaluate, create) replace unobservable verbs (understand, know, appreciate, be aware of). Vygotsky's (1978) ZPD informs band-level specification: each band statement describes what students can do WITH APPROPRIATE SUPPORT at that developmental stage — the upper edge of the ZPD.

Input Schema

The educator must provide:

• Competency name: The broad capability. e.g. "Critical Thinking" / "Scientific Investigation" / "Collaborative Problem-Solving" / "Self-Regulation"
• Competency definition: One sentence. e.g. "The ability to analyse information, evaluate evidence, and construct well-reasoned arguments" / "The ability to monitor and adjust one's emotional and behavioural responses across different situations"
• Band range: Which bands. e.g. "Bands A-D (ages 5-14)" / "Bands B-D (ages 8-14)" / "Bands A-C (ages 5-12)"
• Programme purpose: Why this competency matters. e.g. "Our mission requires students who can contribute to a world that needs them — contribution requires the ability to think critically about complex problems, not just accept what they're told"

Optional (injected by context engine if available):

• Existing draft: Any current LT wording to revise
• Subject area: The curriculum domain
• Assessment context: How LTs will be used

Prompt

You are authoring learning targets using Gareth Manning's methodology (Learning Target Authoring Guide v4.0). You must follow these rules PRECISELY — they are the quality standard for every LT produced.

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
STEP 0: KNOWLEDGE TYPE CLASSIFICATION (mandatory first step)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Before decomposition. Before writing band statements. Before anything else.

Every LT must be classified as one of three knowledge types. The classification determines the assessment instrument. Writing the LT before classifying it produces the single most common failure mode in competency-based wellbeing and project curricula: dispositional goals assessed through rubrics, creating the illusion of measurement without the substance.

THE THREE TYPES:

**Type 1 — Hierarchical Knowledge.** Concepts build on each other in a fixed sequence. Missing a prerequisite makes later content inaccessible, not merely harder.
- Indicators: prerequisite chains exist; errors at lower levels propagate upward; canonical sequencing logic; content cannot be reordered without loss.
- Assessment route: rubric with clear criteria, explanation tasks, vocabulary checks, knowledge tests.

**Type 2 — Horizontal Knowledge.** Organised around a central question or situation, illuminated through multiple disciplinary lenses. No single correct answer, but better and worse analyses. What develops cumulatively is not content but thinking sophistication.
- Indicators: multiple valid interpretive frameworks exist; reasoning quality determines assessment outcome; content can be entered from different points; analytical depth increases with experience.
- Assessment route: reasoning-quality rubric, scenario analysis, roleplay with novel situations, case studies, written analytical tasks. Transfer is the test.

**Type 3 — Dispositional Knowledge.** Capacities that develop gradually through sustained experience and exist only in enactment. Cannot be assessed through a single task. A rubric scored on a scenario task does not tell you whether a student has developed the disposition — it tells you whether they can perform it when asked.
- Indicators: the quality exists only across time and contexts; observation of the real behaviour (not a simulation) is required for valid evidence.
- Assessment route: multi-informant, longitudinal — teacher observation notes, student self-reflection, optional parent input, Strive data where applicable. Synthesised in developmental conversation. NOT a summative grade. NO RUBRIC.

CLASSIFICATION DECISION TREE — apply to EVERY emerging LT strand:

1. Does this LT describe content with a hard prerequisite sequence?
   YES → Type 1. Assessment: rubric / knowledge test.

2. Does this LT describe analytical or reasoning capability across multiple lenses?
   YES → Type 2. Assessment: reasoning-quality rubric, scenario task.

3. Does this LT describe a quality that only exists as it is enacted over time?
   YES → Type 3. Assessment: multi-informant observation. NO RUBRIC.

4. Does the statement contain elements from more than one type?
   YES → COMPOUND. Split before proceeding. Type 3 elements always go to the multi-informant observation pathway. Type 1 and Type 2 elements go to the rubric pathway. Each pathway has a separate LT.

5. Is this Type 3 LT dependent on Type 1 or Type 2 knowledge being in place first?
   YES → Knowledge-contingent. Name the prerequisite LTs explicitly.

KNOWLEDGE-CONTINGENT DISPOSITIONS:
A Type 3 disposition is knowledge-contingent when the student cannot develop the capacity without first having the Type 1 or Type 2 knowledge base in place. This is a sequencing requirement, not a design flaw.

Example: Self-regulation is knowledge-contingent. A student cannot genuinely develop self-regulation strategies without first understanding what the stress response is (Type 1), and without having practised a repertoire of regulation strategies in structured situations (Type 2). The Type 3 observation is only valid evidence once the prerequisites are established.

Design rule: If an LT is Type 3 and knowledge-contingent, name the prerequisite LTs explicitly. Do not expect the disposition to develop before the prerequisites are taught.

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
LT WRITING RULES (non-negotiable)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

1. **Every band statement begins "I can..."** — present tense, active voice, first person. **TYPE 3 EXCEPTION: Type 3 LTs do NOT use "I can..." band statements. They use observation indicator sets — see Mode 3 below.**
2. **No parentheses, no inline examples, no "such as" or "for example" anywhere.** Examples are provided separately in teaching guidance, never embedded in the LT statement itself. A statement with examples baked in becomes an implicit checklist.
3. **Single-construct rule.** Each statement describes ONE coherent capability. Test: "Could I assess these separately?" If yes, they must be separate LTs or separate statements. "Analyses sources and constructs arguments" violates this — analysis and argument construction are separately assessable.
4. **Compound knowledge-type rule.** If a statement contains elements from different knowledge types (e.g., one Type 2 and one Type 3 element), it MUST be split into separate LTs with separate assessment routes — REGARDLESS of whether each element passes the single-construct test on its own. This is the most common cause of assessment misrouting.
5. **Observable action verbs ONLY.** Use: identify, describe, compare, explain, justify, analyse, evaluate, create, design, plan, conduct, present, reflect. NEVER use: understand, know, appreciate, be aware of, effectively, sophisticated, well (without observable criteria).
6. **Progression uses LEVERS, not topic escalation.** The six progression levers: independence (how much support needed), complexity (how many variables or perspectives), scope (how broad the context), precision (how accurate or detailed), reasoning (how deep the justification), transfer (how far from the original context). Progression across bands is achieved by advancing one or more of these levers — NOT by changing the topic or adding content.
7. **2 LTs per competency is the default.** 3 only if the strands are genuinely distinct and cannot be collapsed without losing meaning. NOTE: If a competency contains both a Type 2 analytical strand and a Type 3 dispositional strand, these must become separate LTs with separate assessment routes. This may mean a competency that appeared to need 2 LTs actually needs 3. This is correct design, not inflation.
8. **The LT definition describes what ALL band levels do.** It is the generalised "I can..." statement that applies across every band. It is NOT a Band A statement. For Type 3 LTs, the definition must include a note that this LT is assessed through multi-informant observation.

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
REQUIRED FIELDS FOR EVERY LT
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Every LT must include:
- **LT Name** (Title Case, noun-phrase style, stable across years)
- **LT Definition** (one sentence, "I can...")
- **Knowledge Type** (Type 1 / Type 2 / Type 3)
- **Assessment Route** (Rubric with clear criteria / Reasoning quality rubric / Multi-informant observation)
- **Prerequisites** (required for knowledge-contingent Type 3 LTs — name the Type 1/2 LTs that must be established first)
- **Band statements** (Type 1 and Type 2) OR **Observation indicator set** (Type 3)

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
THREE AUTHORING MODES
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

**Mode 1 — Plain-language decision targets**
Best for: judgement, choices, safety, credibility, reflection, ethics, communication, collaboration routines, and most Type 2 wellbeing LTs.
Default pattern: DO / CHECK / DECIDE
- DO: main action (one clear verb)
- CHECK: 1-3 simple checks (fit, risk, source, audience, constraints)
- DECIDE: outcome + short reason

**Mode 2 — Skill/proficiency targets**
Best for: academic disciplines, arts, performance, scientific practice. Also appropriate for Type 1 wellbeing science knowledge.
Defaults: one clear skill per band statement; complexity and independence increase across bands; avoid tool/menu lists.

Performance-based Do tasks — presentations, physical demonstrations, structured performances, observable skill execution — are a sub-type of Mode 2. They are assessed through performance rubrics applied to the observable execution, not through multi-informant observation (Mode 3, T3 only) and not through analytical reasoning rubrics (which assess reasoning quality, not execution quality). Use the criterion-referenced rubric generator for performance-based Do tasks. Common examples: oral presentations, debate performances, physical education demonstrations, practical science procedures, musical or artistic performances.

**Mode 3 — Observation indicator sets (Type 3 ONLY)**
Best for: ALL Type 3 dispositional LTs. This mode is mandatory for Type 3 — not optional.
Structure: a set of specific, observable, third-person indicators that describe what the disposition looks like when present, calibrated to each band. These are NOT assessed with a rubric — they inform the observation notes and the developmental conversation.

Format:

LT Name: [Dispositional quality] Knowledge Type: Type 3 Assessment Route: Multi-informant observation

Band A indicators — the teacher notices:

• The student [specific observable behaviour at Band A level]
• The student [specific observable behaviour at Band A level]

Band B indicators — the teacher notices:

• The student [specific observable behaviour]
• The student [specific observable behaviour]

Band C indicators — the teacher notices:

• The student [specific observable behaviour]
• The student [specific observable behaviour]

Band D indicators — the teacher notices:

• The student [specific observable behaviour]
• The student [specific observable behaviour]

Band E indicators — the teacher notices:

• The student [specific observable behaviour]
• The student [specific observable behaviour]

Band F indicators — the teacher notices:

• The student [specific observable behaviour]
• The student [specific observable behaviour]

Knowledge-contingent prerequisites: [Name the Type 1/2 LTs, if applicable]

Type 3 developmental progression: Indicators at Band D describe more sophisticated, self-directed, and cross-context manifestations of the disposition. At Band A they describe simpler, more immediate, adult-scaffolded manifestations. The progression uses the same levers (independence, complexity, scope, reasoning, transfer) — but they describe what the teacher observes, not what the student performs for assessment.

Type 3 evidence pathway:
- Teacher observation notes: brief, dated, specific indicator. Third-person. Stored in a retrievable form. At least one counterexample observation per unit (an observation that surprised the teacher or contradicted their existing view of the student).
- Student self-reflection: open questions calibrated to developmental band — not self-grading.
  - Band A: name a moment when you tried something hard
  - Band B: describe one pattern you noticed in yourself this term
  - Band C: compare what you noticed with what your teacher observed
  - Band D: analyse a pattern across contexts and explain what shifted
  - Band E: evaluate how your capacity has developed over the past year — what has changed, what conditions made change possible, and what has remained resistant to change
  - Band F: construct an account of your development across high-stakes real-world contexts over an extended period — what patterns hold, what conditions still challenge you, and what remains unresolved
- Parent/caregiver noticing prompts (optional): three plain-language "what do you notice?" questions sent home two weeks before developmental conversations.
- Strive data (where applicable): behavioural record of actual habit enactment.
- Synthesised in the developmental conversation. NOT a summative grade.

Student-generated single-point rubric (Type 3 supplement): At the start of each unit, the student writes one sentence describing what "doing this well" looks like for them. This becomes the reference point for teacher observation and developmental conversations — not a school-wide criterion. Bands A-B generate this collaboratively with the teacher. Bands C-D write it independently. Band D students review and revise at mid-unit as a metacognitive act. The value of the student-generated single-point rubric is in the act of generation — the student articulating what doing this well looks like for them — not in scoring. It is never used for grading.

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
DECOMPOSITION LOGIC
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

A competency is too broad to assess directly. It must be decomposed into 2-3 LTs that together COVER the competency and are individually ASSESSABLE. The decomposition should feel natural — like cutting a diamond along its grain, not chopping it into arbitrary pieces.

Test the decomposition:
- **Coverage test:** Do the LTs together cover the full meaning of the competency? Is anything missing?
- **Distinctness test:** Are the LTs genuinely different capabilities, or are they different ways of saying the same thing?
- **Assessability test:** Can each LT be assessed through observable student work (Type 1/2) or multi-informant observation (Type 3)?
- **Knowledge-type test:** Does each LT contain only ONE knowledge type? If a single LT bundles Type 2 and Type 3 elements, split it — regardless of whether it passes the single-construct test.

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
QUALITY CHECKLIST (must pass before output)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Format checks:
- [ ] Every Type 1 and Type 2 band statement begins with "I can..."
- [ ] Every Learning Target Definition begins with "I can..."
- [ ] Every Competency Definition begins with "The ability to..."
- [ ] All statements are present tense, active voice
- [ ] Type 3 LTs use observation indicator format, not rubric band statements

Prohibition checks:
- [ ] No parentheses anywhere in the set
- [ ] No inline examples in band statements
- [ ] No inline examples in Learning Target Definitions
- [ ] No "such as" or "for example" anywhere
- [ ] No content inventories (lists of topics/tools/periods)
- [ ] No vague quality descriptors without observable criteria

Construct checks:
- [ ] Single-construct rule passes for all band statements
- [ ] Could pass the "assess separately?" test
- [ ] Compound knowledge-type check: no statement bundles Type 2 and Type 3 elements

Knowledge type checks:
- [ ] Every LT has a Knowledge Type field (Type 1 / Type 2 / Type 3)
- [ ] Every LT has an Assessment Route field that matches its knowledge type
- [ ] Type 3 LTs do not have rubric band statements
- [ ] Knowledge-contingent Type 3 LTs have prerequisite LTs named
- [ ] No Type 3 element is buried inside a Type 1 or Type 2 LT statement

Coherence checks:
- [ ] Vertical coherence: clear A-F progression for all LTs
- [ ] Horizontal coherence: each Learning Target Definition accurately describes what all its band levels do
- [ ] Progression uses appropriate levers (independence / complexity / scope / reasoning / transfer)

Language checks:
- [ ] Language is plain and assessable throughout
- [ ] Age-appropriate for all bands
- [ ] Consistent spelling convention (UK or US)
- [ ] Consistent terminology across the set
- [ ] Strong action verbs (avoid understand / know / appreciate)

Completeness checks:
- [ ] All cells filled (or explicitly marked N/A with rationale)
- [ ] Notes used only for teacher clarifications, not hidden examples
- [ ] Knowledge Type and Assessment Route fields completed for every LT

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
PRE-SUBMISSION SELF-CHECK PROTOCOL
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Before returning output, complete this protocol:

1. Read all Learning Target Definitions aloud. Do any contain content lists? Flag and fix.
2. Apply the "such as" test. Could you insert "such as" naturally anywhere? If yes, you have an implicit list. Remove it.
3. Check for compound statements. Count the "and" conjunctions. Does each one join a single coherent capability, or two assessable actions? Fix any violations.
4. Apply the compound knowledge-type test. For every "and" in every statement: do the two elements belong to the same knowledge type? If one element is Type 2 (analysable in a scenario) and another is Type 3 (only evidenced through real enactment over time), the statement is a compound knowledge-type violation. Split it.
5. Verify horizontal alignment. For each LT, does the definition describe what ALL band levels do? If not, revise.
6. Quality descriptor audit. Highlight all quality adjectives. Are they tied to observable criteria? If not, replace them.
7. Assessment route verification. For each LT: is the named assessment route actually capable of producing valid evidence for this kind of knowledge? A multi-informant observation route for a Type 1 knowledge LT is as wrong as a rubric for a Type 3 disposition.

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Your task is to author a complete LT set for:

**Competency name:** {{competency_name}}
**Competency definition:** {{competency_definition}}
**Band range:** {{band_range}}
**Programme purpose:** {{programme_purpose}}

The following optional context may or may not be provided. Use whatever is available; ignore any fields marked "not provided."

**Existing draft:** {{existing_draft}} — if provided, review and revise against the quality rules. If not provided, author from scratch.
**Subject area:** {{subject_area}} — if not provided, design the LTs to work across subjects.
**Assessment context:** {{assessment_context}} — if not provided, design for use in both project assessment and reporting.

Return your output in this exact format:

## Learning Target Set: [Competency Name]

**Competency:** [Name]
**Definition:** [One sentence, "The ability to..."]
**Programme purpose:** [Why this matters for the mission]
**Number of LTs:** [2 or 3, with rationale — including knowledge-type split rationale if applicable]

### Competency Review

[Is this competency right? Does it serve the mission? Is it a genuine capability or a topic list in disguise? If the competency needs reframing, say so before proceeding.]

### Step 0: Knowledge Type Classification

[For each emerging LT strand, run the classification decision tree. State the knowledge type, the assessment route, and the reasoning. If any strand is compound, flag it and split before proceeding. If any Type 3 strand is knowledge-contingent, name the prerequisites.]

| LT Strand | Knowledge Type | Assessment Route | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Strand 1] | Type [1/2/3] | [Route] | [Why this classification] |
| [Strand 2] | Type [1/2/3] | [Route] | [Why this classification] |

### LT Decomposition

[The 2-3 LTs, with rationale for each and evidence that the decomposition passes the coverage, distinctness, assessability, and knowledge-type tests]

**LT1: [Name]**
- **Definition:** "I can [generalised statement that applies across all bands]"
- **Knowledge Type:** Type [1/2/3]
- **Assessment Route:** [Route]
- **Prerequisites:** [For knowledge-contingent Type 3 only; otherwise "N/A"]
- **Rationale:** [Why this strand exists as a separate LT]

**LT2: [Name]**
- **Definition:** "I can [generalised statement]"
- **Knowledge Type:** Type [1/2/3]
- **Assessment Route:** [Route]
- **Prerequisites:** [If applicable]
- **Rationale:** [Why this strand exists]

### Band Statements / Observation Indicators

[FOR TYPE 1 AND TYPE 2 LTs — use band statement table:]

**LT[n]: [Name]**
Knowledge Type: Type [1/2]
Assessment Route: [Route]
Authoring Mode: [Mode 1 or Mode 2]

| Band | Statement | Progression Lever(s) |
|---|---|---|
| A | I can [Band A statement] | [Which lever(s)] |
| B | I can [Band B statement] | [Which lever(s)] |
| C | I can [Band C statement] | [Which lever(s)] |
| D | I can [Band D statement] | [Which lever(s)] |

[FOR TYPE 3 LTs — use observation indicator format:]

**LT[n]: [Name]**
Knowledge Type: Type 3
Assessment Route: Multi-informant observation
Prerequisites: [Named Type 1/2 LTs, if knowledge-contingent]

Band A indicators — the teacher notices:
- The student [specific observable behaviour]
- The student [specific observable behaviour]

Band B indicators — the teacher notices:
- The student [specific observable behaviour]
- The student [specific observable behaviour]

Band C indicators — the teacher notices:
- The student [specific observable behaviour]
- The student [specific observable behaviour]

Band D indicators — the teacher notices:
- The student [specific observable behaviour]
- The student [specific observable behaviour]

Band E indicators — the teacher notices:
- The student [specific observable behaviour]
- The student [specific observable behaviour]

Band F indicators — the teacher notices:
- The student [specific observable behaviour]
- The student [specific observable behaviour]

Student self-reflection prompts:
- Band A: [prompt]
- Band B: [prompt]
- Band C: [prompt]
- Band D: [prompt]
- Band E: [prompt]
- Band F: [prompt]

### Quality Check

[Run every statement through the full v4.0 checklist. Flag any issues.]

**Format checks:**
- [ ] Every Type 1/2 band statement begins with "I can..."
- [ ] Every LT Definition begins with "I can..."
- [ ] Every Competency Definition begins with "The ability to..."
- [ ] All statements present tense, active voice
- [ ] Type 3 LTs use observation indicator format, not rubric band statements

**Prohibition checks:**
- [ ] No parentheses anywhere
- [ ] No inline examples in band statements or definitions
- [ ] No "such as" or "for example" anywhere
- [ ] No content inventories
- [ ] No vague quality descriptors without observable criteria

**Construct checks:**
- [ ] Single-construct rule passes
- [ ] Compound knowledge-type check passes: no statement bundles elements from different knowledge types

**Knowledge type checks:**
- [ ] Every LT has a Knowledge Type field
- [ ] Every LT has an Assessment Route that matches its knowledge type
- [ ] Type 3 LTs do not have rubric band statements
- [ ] Knowledge-contingent Type 3 LTs have prerequisites named
- [ ] No Type 3 element is buried inside a Type 1 or Type 2 LT

**Coherence checks:**
- [ ] Vertical coherence (clear A-F progression)
- [ ] Horizontal coherence (LT definition describes all band levels)
- [ ] Progression uses levers, not topic escalation

**Language checks:**
- [ ] Plain, assessable language throughout
- [ ] Consistent spelling convention
- [ ] Strong action verbs only

**Completeness checks:**
- [ ] All cells filled or marked N/A with rationale
- [ ] Knowledge Type and Assessment Route fields completed for every LT

### Known Limitations

[Where the LT set is strongest and where teacher judgment will still be needed]

**Self-check before returning output:** Run the full pre-submission protocol: (a) read all definitions aloud — any content lists? (b) "such as" test — could you insert it anywhere? (c) compound statement check — count the "and" conjunctions, (d) compound knowledge-type test — do elements on either side of "and" belong to the same knowledge type? (e) horizontal alignment — does the definition describe all band levels? (f) quality descriptor audit — all adjectives tied to observable criteria? (g) assessment route verification — is the named route capable of producing valid evidence for this knowledge type?

Example Output

Scenario 1 (Type 2): Competency name: "Critical Thinking" / Competency definition: "The ability to analyse information, evaluate evidence, and construct well-reasoned arguments" / Band range: "Bands A-D (ages 5-14)" / Programme purpose: "Our mission requires students who can contribute to a world that needs them. Contribution to complex real-world problems requires the ability to think critically — to distinguish strong evidence from weak, to identify assumptions, and to construct arguments that can withstand challenge. Without critical thinking, students become consumers of other people's conclusions rather than producers of their own"

Learning Target Set: Critical Thinking

Competency: Critical Thinking Definition: The ability to analyse information, evaluate evidence, and construct well-reasoned arguments Programme purpose: Contribution to a world that needs critical thinkers — people who produce their own conclusions, not consume others' Number of LTs: 2 — Analysis and Argument are genuinely distinct capabilities (you can analyse without arguing, and argue without analysing well)

Competency Review

This competency is well-framed. It describes a genuine capability (not a topic), it serves the mission directly (critical contribution requires critical thinking), and it is broad enough to apply across all subjects and projects. The definition contains three elements: analyse, evaluate, construct arguments. Analysis and evaluation are closely related (evaluating IS a form of analysis), so these collapse into one LT. Argument construction is distinct — it's a productive capability (making something) rather than an analytical capability (taking something apart). Two LTs.

Step 0: Knowledge Type Classification

No Type 3 elements detected. Critical thinking as a DISPOSITION (the habit of questioning spontaneously, not just when asked) is a real and important capacity — but it is not what this competency measures. If the programme wants to capture the disposition to think critically, that requires a separate Type 3 LT with its own observation pathway.

LT Decomposition

LT1: Analysis of Evidence

• Definition: "I can examine information and evidence to identify what is relevant, reliable, and significant"
• Knowledge Type: Type 2
• Assessment Route: Reasoning quality rubric
• Prerequisites: N/A
• Rationale: This LT covers the ANALYTICAL dimension of critical thinking — the ability to take information apart, assess its quality, and determine what matters. It is the input side of critical thinking: processing what is given.

LT2: Reasoned Argument

• Definition: "I can construct a clear argument supported by evidence and reasoning"
• Knowledge Type: Type 2
• Assessment Route: Reasoning quality rubric
• Prerequisites: N/A
• Rationale: This LT covers the PRODUCTIVE dimension of critical thinking — the ability to build a case, support it with evidence, and present it in a way that can be examined and challenged. It is the output side of critical thinking: producing a position.

Decomposition tests:

• Coverage: Together, LT1 (analysis) and LT2 (argument) cover the full meaning of "Critical Thinking." A student who can analyse evidence AND construct reasoned arguments is a critical thinker.
• Distinctness: A student can be strong at analysis but weak at argument (they see the flaws but can't articulate their own position), or strong at argument but weak at analysis (they argue persuasively but from poor evidence). These are genuinely different capabilities.
• Assessability: Both LTs produce observable evidence in student work — analysis can be seen in how students evaluate sources, identify bias, and select evidence; argument can be seen in how students structure claims, support them, and address counter-positions.
• Knowledge-type test: Both LTs are Type 2. No compound knowledge-type issue.

Band Statements

LT1: Analysis of Evidence Knowledge Type: Type 2 Assessment Route: Reasoning quality rubric Authoring Mode: Mode 2

LT2: Reasoned Argument Knowledge Type: Type 2 Assessment Route: Reasoning quality rubric Authoring Mode: Mode 2

Quality Check

• Single-construct rule: Each statement assesses one coherent capability. LT1 is always about examining evidence; LT2 is always about building argument. No statement combines both.
• Compound knowledge-type check: Both LTs are Type 2. No mixed-type elements.
• No parentheses or inline examples: None present. No "such as" or "for example."
• Observable verbs only: identify, compare, evaluate, explain, analyse, justify, state, present, construct, build, integrate, address. No "understand," "know," or "appreciate."
• Vertical coherence: Within each LT, Band D is genuinely more advanced than Band A — the progression is clear and continuous through the levers.
• Horizontal coherence: Band B across both LTs describes a similar developmental demand — comparing sources and presenting multi-evidence claims are both Band B level tasks.
• LT definition describes all band levels: "I can examine information and evidence to identify what is relevant, reliable, and significant" applies to all bands — Band A does this simply (single source), Band D does this with sophistication (competing evidence with bias analysis).
• Knowledge Type fields: Both LTs have Type 2 and Reasoning quality rubric specified.
• Assessment route verification: Reasoning quality rubric is appropriate for Type 2 horizontal knowledge. Transfer to novel situations is the test.
• 2 LTs: Justified — analysis and argument are genuinely distinct.

Known Limitations

1. Critical thinking is domain-dependent as well as domain-general. A student who thinks critically about science may not transfer that skill to history. These LTs are written as domain-general capabilities, but teachers should expect that critical thinking looks different in different subjects and that transfer across subjects requires explicit teaching.

2. Band A is deliberately modest. "I can state my opinion and give a reason" may seem too simple for critical thinking, but it accurately represents the developmental starting point for a 5-7-year-old. Pushing Band A toward "analyse multiple perspectives" would set an impossible expectation that produces either false compliance or teacher frustration.

3. The LTs do not capture the DISPOSITION to think critically. A student can have the CAPABILITY to analyse evidence (they can do it when asked) but not the DISPOSITION (they don't do it spontaneously). If the programme requires the disposition, author a separate Type 3 LT — "Critical Thinking as Practice" — assessed through multi-informant observation, not rubric.

**S

…(truncated)