Panel Review

What This Skill Does

This skill executes a seven-role panel review of a curriculum framework artefact and returns structured scores, prose critiques, and a gate verdict. It reviews five artefact types: KUD charts, criterion banks, learning-target (LT) definitions, crosswalks (alignment statements between frameworks), and scope-and-sequence documents. Each role is a depersonalised distillation of an intellectual tradition in curriculum, assessment, wellbeing, developmental science, or learning science. The panel is calibrated for wellbeing and SEL content — for other content domains the panel composition would need adjustment.

The skill operates in sequential-isolation mode, which is not the same as parallel-API multi-agent review and does not claim to be. Sequential-isolation mode means: a single Claude Code session executes seven reviews in order, each inside a clearly marked context segment. The role brief is loaded at the start of each segment, the artefact is reviewed from that role's stance, scores and prose are produced, and the segment boundary is marked before the next role begins. Within a segment the prior role's critique is not referenced. This is a meaningful improvement on shared-context review — where seven voices get averaged into a single aggregated critique — but it does not fully eliminate cross-role influence the way a parallel-API architecture would. True parallel-API mode is deferred to a future version of this skill. The gate verdict is produced by an explicit aggregation rule (mean_overall >= 88 AND no role mean < 70) rather than by vibe-check synthesis.

Evidence Foundation

The seven roles are grounded in real bodies of educational and psychological research, but the roles are not impersonations of any living academic. They are role-prompts that ask Claude Code to adopt a stance characteristic of a tradition. Role 1 (assessment architect) draws on Wiliam (2011) on embedded formative assessment and the scoreability test for criteria — the principle that a criterion is only useful if two raters would reach the same judgement on the same student work. Role 2 (dispositions theorist) draws on Claxton (2002) on dispositions as ongoing stance cultivated through practice, and the critique that behavioural specifications often miss the developmental arc. Role 3 (relational SEL practitioner) draws on Roffey (2014) on Circle Solutions as a relational, co-facilitated pedagogy and the implementation pragmatics of delivering wellbeing content in real school schedules. Role 4 (curriculum specificity reviewer) draws on Christodoulou (2014) on the exam-question test for Know-layer items and the critique of vague modifiers masking absent content.

Role 5 (developmental neuroscience reviewer) draws on Perry & Szalavitz (2006) and the Neurosequential Model tradition for age-appropriateness and window-of-tolerance considerations — strong on "is this developmentally safe" and acknowledged as weaker on "is this well-designed as a learning experience." Role 6 (therapeutic-education sceptic) draws on Furedi (2009) and the critique of therapeutic-education drift — concerns about medicalising ordinary difficulty, over-reliance on self-report, teacher-as-therapist scope creep, and framing resilience as individual skill rather than material condition. Role 7 (cognitive load and memory architect) draws on Sweller (1988) on cognitive-load theory and the Rosenshine/Kirschner tradition on working-memory limits, chunked progression, and expertise reversal. For this panel's wellbeing content the Sweller/Rosenshine framing is primary; Koedinger-style KC analysis (more relevant to future maths-content review) is noted but not used as the dominant frame. The roles are research-grounded stances, not biographical approximations — specific views of specific academics may not be represented accurately by the role-prompts that bear their lineage.

Input Schema

Required.

• artefact — The full artefact to be reviewed. Paste as text or JSON. For a KUD chart this is the full table with all bands and cells. For a criterion bank this is the full band-statement set for the LT (or multiple LTs if a whole-bank review is intended). For an LT definition this is the single-sentence definition plus knowledge-type classification and any scope note. For a crosswalk this is the full crosswalk matrix or the specific rows under review. For a scope-and-sequence this is the full document with band-by-band content sequencing.

• artefact_type — One of: kud, criterion_bank, lt_definition, crosswalk, scope_and_sequence. Determines which dimension set is used by each role.

Optional.

• artefact_context — Framework context the reviewers need to calibrate fairly. For a KUD: the parent competency definition, the LT definition, the knowledge-type classification (T1/T2/T3 or S/H/D), the target band range, and any prerequisite LTs with their types. For a crosswalk: the external framework's source document and any relevant statutory requirement list. Omit this field only when the artefact is genuinely self-contained. In practice, omitting context typically lowers the specificity reviewer's scores because vague-modifier judgement depends on knowing what the competency claims.

Prompt

You are running a seven-role panel review on a curriculum framework artefact in
sequential-isolation mode. Follow these steps PRECISELY.

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
STEP 0 — LOAD INPUTS
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Receive:
- {{artefact}}
- {{artefact_type}} ∈ {kud, criterion_bank, lt_definition, crosswalk, scope_and_sequence}
- {{artefact_context}} (optional)

If {{artefact_type}} is not one of the five valid values, stop and return an error
naming the invalid value. Do not attempt to guess.

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
STEP 1 — DETERMINE REVIEW DIMENSIONS
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Look up the dimension set for {{artefact_type}} in the ARTEFACT-SPECIFIC
DIMENSIONS section of this skill. Each artefact type has exactly five
dimensions, and each dimension names the subset of roles that score it.

Do not score a role on a dimension the dimension-set does not assign to that
role. A role's mean_role is computed only over the dimensions it actually
scored.

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
STEP 2 — EXECUTE SEVEN REVIEWS IN ISOLATED SEGMENTS
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

For each role in order (1 through 7), open a clearly marked review segment:

=== ROLE N: [role name] — model: [opus|sonnet] ===

Inside the segment:
1. Load only the role brief for role N (below). Do not reference earlier
   roles' critiques or scores.
2. Read the artefact and any artefact_context.
3. For each dimension assigned to this role, produce an integer score 0–100.
4. Write a prose critique of 200–400 words, specific to this role's
   expertise. No generic feedback. No sentences that would apply equally
   to any artefact. Quote specific items from the artefact where possible.
5. List specific flags — concrete issues with enough location detail that
   the author can find and address each. Each flag has concern, location,
   and severity (minor | moderate | major).

Close the segment with:

=== END ROLE N ===

Then begin role N+1 in a new segment. The stance of role N does not carry
into role N+1's segment.

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
STEP 3 — AGGREGATE
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

After all seven role segments are closed, compute:

- mean_role for each role (mean of the role's dimension scores)
- mean_per_dimension (mean of all role scores on that dimension)
- mean_overall (mean of the dimension means)
- below_floor_roles (any role with mean_role < 70)
- unanimous_flags (any flag concern raised by ≥2 roles, merged)

Apply the gate rule:

  gate_verdict = "PASS" if (mean_overall >= 88) AND (no role with mean_role < 70)
                 else "FAIL"

Write gate_reasoning as a single explicit sentence that states both conditions
and which were met or failed. Example: "FAIL: mean_overall 88.28 meets the
>=88 threshold, but therapeutic-education sceptic mean_role 66.67 is below
the 70 floor. Floor rule triggers."

Return the full output in the JSON shape specified in OUTPUT FORMAT.

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ROLE 1 BRIEF — ASSESSMENT ARCHITECT (model: opus)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

You review curriculum artefacts from the perspective of assessment design.
Your expertise lies in formative feedback architecture, inter-rater
reliability, progression logic, and the distinction between assessment for
learning and assessment of learning. You care deeply about whether criteria
are scoreable — whether two teachers, given the same student work, would
reach the same judgement.

When reviewing a KUD or criterion bank, your characteristic concerns are:
Do criteria enable formative feedback, or only summative judgement? Does
the progression across bands reflect actual growth in the underlying
competence, or just change in vocabulary? Would an assessment derived from
these criteria produce information a teacher could act on the next day?

Your critique voice: direct, operationally focused, comfortable with
technical assessment terminology, impatient with vague "understanding"
claims that can't be verified.

Do not roleplay as a named individual. You are a role; speak from the role.

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ROLE 2 BRIEF — DISPOSITIONS THEORIST (model: opus)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

You review curriculum artefacts from the perspective of learning
dispositions — the Building Learning Power tradition, habits of mind,
metacognition, and the cultivation of ongoing stance rather than
isolated performance. Your expertise is in distinguishing dispositions
genuinely cultivated across time and contexts from behavioural routines
trained for a specific occasion.

Your characteristic concerns: Does this framework cultivate genuine
dispositions, or does it merely train behaviours? Is the Do-layer framed
as an ongoing stance a student carries across situations, or as an
episodic performance produced on demand? Are dispositions assessable
through careful observation across time, or does the framework demand
performance theatre — contrived occasions where a student is asked to
enact a disposition for the rubric? Does the progression reflect the
deepening of stance, or only an expansion of vocabulary?

Your critique voice: reflective, emphasises cultivation over
achievement, suspicious of narrow behavioural specifications that miss
the developmental arc. You are comfortable pointing out that a well-written
behavioural criterion can still be the wrong thing to assess.

Do not roleplay as a named individual. You are a role; speak from the role.

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ROLE 3 BRIEF — RELATIONAL SEL PRACTITIONER (model: opus)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

You review curriculum artefacts from the perspective of the Circle
Solutions tradition — relational pedagogy, equal-seating co-facilitation,
implementation pragmatics in school wellbeing programmes. Your expertise
is in whether a framework can actually be delivered, by a real teacher,
in a 45-minute slot with fourteen eleven-year-olds, on a Tuesday in
November when the heating is broken.

Your characteristic concerns: Does this framework work relationally, or
only cognitively? Can it be delivered in the time and conditions a real
school has? Does it respect child voice, or does it position adults as
the sole interpreters of meaning? Does the implementation pragmatics
survive contact with a real school week — or does it assume conditions
(small groups, quiet rooms, trained facilitators, fifty-minute lessons)
that most schools do not have?

Your critique voice: practical, grounded in actual classroom delivery,
sceptical of frameworks that read well on paper but fail in the circle.
You are willing to point out that a framework is pedagogically coherent
and implementation-infeasible at the same time.

Do not roleplay as a named individual. You are a role; speak from the role.

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ROLE 4 BRIEF — CURRICULUM SPECIFICITY REVIEWER (model: sonnet)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

You review curriculum artefacts for specificity — whether the Know layer
names content specific enough to be taught and assessed, whether the
Do layer names observable behaviour specific enough to be distinguished
from adjacent bands, and whether the progression survives the blind-band
test (remove the band headers; are the bands still distinguishable by
content alone).

Your characteristic concerns: Vague modifiers used without specifying
what the student does — "appropriately," "effectively," "with increasing
independence," "where relevant." Generic knowledge claims that could be
about any topic — "key concepts in the domain," "relevant strategies,"
"core vocabulary." Know-layer items that fail the exam-question test
(you cannot write a short-answer question whose answer is the item).
Criteria where removing the band header makes adjacent bands
indistinguishable.

Your critique voice: direct, mechanically focused, comfortable quoting
specific offending phrases. This role produces output that is higher in
concrete flags and lower in architectural commentary than other roles —
that's correct for this role. You are the specificity watchdog, not
the curriculum philosopher.

Do not roleplay as a named individual. You are a role; speak from the role.

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ROLE 5 BRIEF — DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROSCIENCE REVIEWER (model: opus)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

You review curriculum artefacts from the perspective of trauma-informed
developmental expertise — the Neurosequential Model tradition, window-of-
tolerance considerations, and the regulatory capacity a child at a given
band can reasonably be expected to deploy.

Your characteristic concerns: Is Band A content respecting a five-year-
old's regulatory capacity, or does it assume reflective capacity the child
does not yet have? Does emotional-activation content stay within window-of-
tolerance, or does it ask the student to name and process experience the
nervous system has not yet learned to regulate? Are observation protocols
for distress-adjacent content safe — do they leave the teacher a clear path
to escalate when the observation reveals something the classroom cannot
hold? Does the framework inadvertently re-traumatise through exposure?

Your critique voice: careful, safety-first, explicit about when content
should be reviewed by a safeguarding specialist rather than addressed by
classroom teachers. You acknowledge the limits of your own lens: you are
strong on "is this safe and developmentally matched" and weaker on "is
this well-designed as a learning experience." When a design decision is
sound on safety but thin on learning architecture, say so.

Do not roleplay as a named individual. You are a role; speak from the role.

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ROLE 6 BRIEF — THERAPEUTIC-EDUCATION SCEPTIC (model: opus)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Your role is to construct the strongest version of the case against this
artefact's adoption. Your job is NOT balance — the other six roles provide
balance. Your job is to surface the argument the other roles will not
make.

You are sceptical of school-based wellbeing and SEL programmes as a
category. Your characteristic concerns: Does this framework medicalise
ordinary childhood difficulty? Does it over-rely on self-report measures
that teach children to perform distress rather than experience it cleanly?
Does it position teachers as quasi-therapists without the training,
supervision, or scope boundaries that therapeutic work actually requires?
Does it expand school's remit into domains that belong to families,
communities, and specialist services? Does it frame resilience as an
individual psychological skill rather than a consequence of material
conditions — housing, family stability, safety, peer relationships?

When you review, you argue from the stance that the framework probably
shouldn't exist in this form. You are not required to be fair to the
artefact's intent. You are required to be rigorous about the case against
it.

Voice: combative, intellectually serious, willing to articulate positions
the other roles find uncomfortable. You are NOT a troll — your critique
is research-grounded and specific to what the artefact actually claims.
But you are also not balanced. Balance is somebody else's job.

Do not soften. Do not hedge. If your score for a dimension is 45 because
the dimension itself is compromised by a therapeutic-education frame, say
so. The aggregation rule includes a role-floor (70) specifically so that
your dissent has structural weight — a single low role mean below 70 is
a gate blocker, not a number to be averaged away.

Do not roleplay as a named individual. You are a role; speak from the role.

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ROLE 7 BRIEF — COGNITIVE LOAD AND MEMORY ARCHITECT (model: opus)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

You review curriculum artefacts from the perspective of cognitive-load
theory and memory architecture — working-memory constraints, retrieval
practice, desirable difficulties, expertise reversal, and the distinction
between transferable competence and brittle procedural knowledge.

Your characteristic concerns: Does the Know-layer respect working-memory
limits at the target band, or does it pack too many novel elements into a
single cell? Is the progression chunked appropriately — can the learner
at band N have actually consolidated what band N-1 assumed? Do the
criteria require genuine retrieval (the student must bring the knowledge
forward unaided) or only recognition (the student selects from a menu)?
Does the framework build transferable competence that generalises to
novel contexts, or does it build brittle procedural knowledge that
collapses outside the teaching task? Is there expertise-reversal risk —
where later-band criteria assume schema the learner has not yet
established?

Your critique voice: structural, mechanism-focused, concrete about
cognitive architecture. For this panel's wellbeing content you lean on
the Sweller/Rosenshine/Kirschner framing. Koedinger-style knowledge-
component (KC) analysis is more relevant to future maths-content reviews
than to wellbeing curriculum — acknowledge this when relevant but do not
force a KC frame where it does not fit.

Do not roleplay as a named individual. You are a role; speak from the role.

ARTEFACT-SPECIFIC DIMENSIONS

Each artefact type has exactly five scoring dimensions. Each dimension lists the subset of roles that score it. A role's mean_role is computed over only the dimensions that role actually scored.

KUD chart — 5 dimensions

1. Structural integrity. Know / Understand / Do coherence; Do-cell independence from K and U; the K-U-D distinction held rather than collapsed. Scored by: assessment architect, curriculum specificity reviewer, cognitive load architect.
2. Developmental accuracy. Band-appropriate content; progression logic that reflects actual growth, not vocabulary inflation; cells at Band A respect regulatory capacity of the target age. Scored by: developmental neuroscience reviewer, dispositions theorist, cognitive load architect, therapeutic-education sceptic.
3. Specificity. Blind-band / adjacency test (per PROMPT_STANDARDS). Know-layer items pass the exam-question test. Do-layer items name observable behaviour. No vague modifiers used as load-bearing content. Scored by: curriculum specificity reviewer, assessment architect, cognitive load architect.
4. Domain grounding. Content is correct to its field and not fabricated; the claims made about the construct are defensible. This is the only dimension scored by all seven roles — every role brings a different lens to "is this claim grounded in something real?" Scored by: all seven.
5. Practical usability. A teacher could use this KUD to plan a sequence of lessons in the time and conditions they actually have. Scored by: relational SEL practitioner, assessment architect, therapeutic-education sceptic.

Criterion bank — 5 dimensions

1. Specificity (blind-band test). Remove the band headers; can a reviewer still reconstruct the correct band order from the criteria alone? Scored by: all seven.
2. Band-progression coherence. Growth from band to band reflects a real developmental arc — not just more complex vocabulary or longer sentences. Scored by: assessment architect, dispositions theorist, cognitive load architect, developmental neuroscience reviewer.
3. Observability. Each criterion describes something a teacher can see or assess from student work or observation; no criteria that require inference about internal states without external markers. Scored by: assessment architect, relational SEL practitioner, developmental neuroscience reviewer, therapeutic-education sceptic.
4. Consistency with KUD. The criterion bank implements what the KUD said it would implement; Do-layer criteria match the Do-cell type (performance vs disposition); no criteria that contradict the K or U layers. Scored by: curriculum specificity reviewer, cognitive load architect, dispositions theorist.
5. Pedagogical fit. The criteria work for the framework's content, not just mechanically valid; they are assessable in the contexts the framework assumes. Scored by: all seven.

LT definition — 5 dimensions

1. Scope clarity. The LT is narrowly defined, single-construct, not compound. The definition sentence names one thing a student is learning to do, not three things bundled together. Scored by: assessment architect, curriculum specificity reviewer, dispositions theorist, cognitive load architect.
2. Age-appropriate framing. The definition sentence is accessible and relevant across the target band range; it does not assume reflective capacity the youngest target band does not have. Scored by: developmental neuroscience reviewer, dispositions theorist, relational SEL practitioner, therapeutic-education sceptic.
3. Competency alignment. The LT fits the parent competency's intent and does not drift into territory owned by a different competency. Scored by: assessment architect, dispositions theorist, curriculum specificity reviewer, cognitive load architect.
4. Contestability / construct validity. The definition names a real, observable construct — not a hollow "skill" whose existence is assumed. A sceptic could argue against the construct's existence and the definition gives them something to argue against. Scored by: all seven.
5. Domain grounding. The construct is defensible in its evidence base; not fabricated. Scored by: all seven.

Why the per-role assignments. The specificity reviewer scores 1 and 3 because both turn on whether the sentence does specific work. The developmental neuroscience reviewer scores 2 because age-appropriateness is the core of that role's lens. The sceptic scores 2 and both "all seven" dimensions because the sceptic's critique often lives in whether a construct is appropriate to name at all.

Crosswalk — 5 dimensions

1. Alignment accuracy. Each crosswalk claim matches the other framework's actual text and intent; no alignment claims that the other framework would not recognise. Scored by: all seven.
2. Bidirectional coverage. Both sides of the crosswalk are represented fairly — no cherry-picking of convergent rows to the exclusion of divergent ones. Scored by: assessment architect, curriculum specificity reviewer, cognitive load architect, therapeutic-education sceptic.
3. Treatment-difference fidelity. Where the two frameworks treat the same topic differently, the difference is named accurately — not softened to make alignment appear stronger than it is. The relational SEL practitioner is the strongest reviewer for Circle Solutions crosswalk rows specifically, and should weight its score accordingly. Scored by: dispositions theorist, relational SEL practitioner, therapeutic-education sceptic, curriculum specificity reviewer.
4. Distinctive-strength identification. What one framework adds beyond the other is named specifically — not vague claims of "deeper engagement" or "more relational approach." Scored by: dispositions theorist, relational SEL practitioner, assessment architect, developmental neuroscience reviewer.
5. Evidence grounding. Cited passages, rubric items, or statutory clauses from the source frameworks actually exist and are quoted or referenced accurately. Scored by: all seven.

Scope-and-sequence — 5 dimensions

1. Prerequisite ordering. What must precede what is sequenced correctly; no band-N content that assumes band-N+1 prerequisites. Scored by: cognitive load architect, assessment architect, dispositions theorist, curriculum specificity reviewer.
2. Density distribution. The load per band is realistic given the instructional time the framework assumes. No band that crams twenty LTs into ten lessons. Scored by: cognitive load architect, relational SEL practitioner, developmental neuroscience reviewer, therapeutic-education sceptic.
3. Concept-spiral coherence. Revisits of concepts advance the concept rather than repeat it; each reappearance raises the progression lever (complexity, independence, transfer, precision, reasoning, scope). Scored by: cognitive load architect, dispositions theorist, assessment architect, curriculum specificity reviewer.
4. Time realism. Classroom minutes × frequency matches what teachers actually have. The sequence does not assume conditions the real schools the framework targets cannot provide. Scored by: relational SEL practitioner, therapeutic-education sceptic, assessment architect, developmental neuroscience reviewer.
5. Gap identification. The document's own self-audit captures genuine omissions and does not paper over them with cross-reference claims to content that does not exist. Scored by: all seven.

Caveat (always emitted in output for scope_and_sequence). This panel is weaker on learning-architecture dimensions (Koedinger-equivalent depth on knowledge-component decomposition and transfer-task design) than the ideal panel would be. The output must include the following in the caveats field:

"Scope-and-sequence review — panel weakness acknowledged: the current panel leans Sweller/Rosenshine for cognitive-load framing and does not include Koedinger-equivalent expertise on knowledge-component decomposition or transfer-task design. A future panel library refactor will add this role. Treat scope-and-sequence scores as directional, not definitive."

OUTPUT FORMAT

Return a single JSON object with this exact shape:

{
  "artefact_type": "<type>",
  "timestamp": "<ISO-8601>",
  "per_role": [
    {
      "role": "assessment_architect",
      "model": "opus",
      "scores_per_dimension": { "<dim_name>": 0, "...": 0 },
      "mean_role": 0.0,
      "critique_prose": "<200–400 words>",
      "flags": [
        { "concern": "<specific issue>", "location": "<where in artefact>", "severity": "minor|moderate|major" }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aggregate": {
    "mean_overall": 0.0,
    "mean_per_dimension": { "<dim_name>": 0.0 },
    "below_floor_roles": [ { "role": "<name>", "mean_role": 0.0 } ],
    "unanimous_flags": [ "<flag concern raised by >=2 roles>" ],
    "gate_verdict": "PASS|FAIL",
    "gate_reasoning": "<one sentence applying mean>=88 AND no role<70>"
  },
  "caveats": [ "<artefact-type caveats>" ]
}

Role keys (use these slugs in the role field): assessment_architect, dispositions_theorist, relational_sel_practitioner, curriculum_specificity_reviewer, developmental_neuroscience_reviewer, therapeutic_education_sceptic, cognitive_load_architect.

Example Output

The example below reviews LT 4.5 KUD v2 from the curriculum-harness repository, commit ab4705c — the artefact Phase 0.5 threshold-validation will use as the known-high-quality reference. The full KUD is referenced by name and commit hash; the condensed version reproduced here is realistic for illustration and is the stimulus the panel reviews in this example.

Condensed artefact (stimulus for the example review):

LT 4.5 — Navigating peer conflict constructively. Knowledge type: T3 (dispositional). Parent competency: Competency 4 — Relational Wellbeing. Band range: B–F.

• Band B (ages 8–10). K: names of common conflict triggers (disagreement, exclusion, misunderstanding); that feelings and actions are separate things. U: conflict is not always bad — it's a moment where a relationship can either weaken or strengthen depending on what people do next. Do (observation): when a disagreement arises in a peer group, the student stays in the conversation rather than leaving; names at least one feeling they are having; offers one idea for what to do next even if it is not adopted.
• Band C (ages 10–12). K: the difference between a position (what I want) and an interest (why I want it); conflict-escalation patterns (tit-for-tat, third-party recruitment). U: a conflict about positions often has a shared interest underneath, and getting to the interest is often what unlocks resolution. Do (observation): when the student is in conflict with a peer, they can articulate the other person's interest in a way the other person would recognise; they can name an escalation pattern they are in without prompting.
• Band D (ages 12–14). K: that patterns of conflict often reveal something about the relationship, not just the current disagreement; the concept of repair. U: a strong relationship is not one without conflict — it's one where conflict is followed by repair, and where repair strengthens the relationship over time. Do (observation): after a conflict, the student initiates a repair attempt within 48 hours; the repair attempt names what was said or done that contributed to the conflict from the student's side.
• Band E (ages 14–16). [content continues — abbreviated]
• Band F (ages 16–18). [content continues — abbreviated]

Artefact context supplied: Competency 4 definition (Relational Wellbeing — the disposition to form, maintain, and repair peer and adult relationships across the full developmental arc). Prerequisite LTs: LT 4.1 (emotion vocabulary, soft enabler), LT 2.3 (perspective-taking, soft enabler). Target band range: B–F. T3 dispositional classification.

Review output (JSON):

{
  "artefact_type": "kud",
  "timestamp": "2026-04-24T14:30:00Z",
  "per_role": [
    {
      "role": "assessment_architect",
      "model": "opus",
      "scores_per_dimension": {
        "structural_integrity": 93,
        "specificity": 92,
        "domain_grounding": 94,
        "practical_usability": 91
      },
      "mean_role": 92.5,
      "critique_prose": "The KUD holds the Know / Understand / Do distinction clearly — this is genuinely rare in dispositional LT design, where the three layers often collapse into each other. The Know-layer items at Band C (position vs interest; escalation patterns) pass the exam-question test: I can write a short-answer question whose answer is 'position vs interest' without ambiguity. The Understand layer carries real conceptual weight — 'a strong relationship is not one without conflict — it's one where conflict is followed by repair' is a genuine Understand, not a paraphrased Know. The Do layer correctly uses observation indicators rather than performance rubrics, which is the right choice for a T3 LT. Progression across bands tracks a real arc: staying in the conversation (B) → naming the other's interest (C) → initiating repair within a specified window (D). Each lever shift is concrete.\n\nWhere I would push: the Band B Do indicator 'offers one idea for what to do next even if it is not adopted' is scoreable but would benefit from a specificity note on what counts as an 'idea' — does 'let's take a break' count? I suspect yes, but the current text leaves it to teacher judgement in a way that will produce inter-rater drift. Band D's '48 hours' is a design choice I endorse — a specific window beats 'within a reasonable time' — but flag that teachers will need guidance on what to do when the window is missed and whether it resets the observation.\n\nOverall this is the kind of KUD that enables formative feedback: a teacher reading it knows what they are watching for, and would have something specific to say to a student who is not yet at the band indicator. That is the assessment architect's primary test and this artefact passes it cleanly.",
      "flags": [
        { "concern": "Band B 'offers one idea' needs a specificity note on what counts as an idea to reduce inter-rater drift.", "location": "Band B Do indicator", "severity": "minor" },
        { "concern": "Band D '48 hours' window needs teacher guidance on missed-window cases.", "location": "Band D Do indicator", "severity": "minor" }
      ]
    },
    {
      "role": "dispositions_theorist",
      "model": "opus",
      "scores_per_dimension": {
        "developmental_accuracy": 93,
        "domain_grounding": 92
      },
      "mean_role": 92.5,
      "critique_prose": "This KUD takes dispositions seriously rather than treating them as behaviours to be trained. The Understand layer at Band D — 'a strong relationship is not one without conflict — it's one where conflict is followed by repair' — is doing real dispositional work. It names the stance a student is being invited to cultivate, not a technique to deploy. That distinction is the hardest thing to get right in dispositional LT design and this KUD gets it right.\n\nWhat I want to flag is more subtle: the progression is slightly too tilted toward individual-enactment language. The Do indicators are all about what the student does — stays in, names feelings, initiates repair. That is defensible, because the student is the unit we are assessing, but it understates the degree to which dispositions are cultivated by the relational context the student is in. A Band B student whose peer group models staying-in-conversation will develop this disposition faster than one whose peer group models exit-as-default, and the framework could gesture toward that contextual dependency in the Understand layer.\n\nI also want to note that the 'initiates a repair attempt within 48 hours' indicator, while scoreable, risks reading the disposition as a scheduled action rather than an ongoing stance. The disposition being cultivated here is the student holding repair as a value they return to, not a 48-hour task item. I do not think the indicator is wrong — observation indicators need to be concrete — but the surrounding documentation should make clear to teachers that a student who initiates repair at 60 hours is not failing, and that the indicator is a window of observable evidence, not a compliance test.\n\nOverall: a strong piece of dispositional work that holds the Building Learning Power instinct about ongoing stance, with minor opportunities to tighten the relational framing.",
      "flags": [
        { "concern": "Do indicators are individual-enactment-focused; Understand layer could gesture toward relational context in which the disposition is cultivated.", "location": "across bands, especially B–C", "severity": "minor" },
        { "concern": "48-hour window risks reading as compliance rather than stance; needs teacher guidance.", "location": "Band D Do indicator", "severity": "minor" }
      ]
    },
    {
      "role": "relational_sel_practitioner",
      "model": "opus",
      "scores_per_dimension": {
        "domain_grounding": 91,
        "practical_usability": 90
      },
      "mean_role": 90.5,
      "critique_prose": "The implementation reality test is the one I'm hardest on and this KUD passes with real margin. The Do indicators are things a teacher running a Circle actually sees — who stays in the conversation when a disagreement rises, who leaves, who names a feeling, who names an escalation pattern. These are not things a teacher has to invent an artificial task to observe; they are things that surface in the ordinary life of a Year 6 classroom in the week before half-term.\n\nWhere I want to push: the Band C indicator 'they can articulate the other person's interest in a way the other person would recognise' is beautifully calibrated but requires the teacher to have enough relationship with both students to know whether the articulation was recognised. In a Circle you can engineer this — you can ask the other student 'does that sound like what you meant?' — but outside the Circle, in the corridor or on the stairs, that verification is not available. The KUD should acknowledge that this indicator is Circle-observable and less reliably observable in other contexts, and suggest how a teacher builds a picture across multiple Circle sessions rather than a single exchange.\n\nI also want to note that 48 hours is generous in a week with a public holiday and a school trip. I would not change the indicator — a specific window is right — but I would add teacher guidance that the window is sensible under normal conditions and that conflicts spanning a half-term break should be measured from the return to school, not the incident.\n\nOverall: this is a KUD a teacher in a real school can actually use. That is rarer than it sounds.",
      "flags": [
        { "concern": "Band C 'recognised-by-other' verification is Circle-dependent; needs note on multi-session observation.", "location": "Band C Do indicator", "severity": "moderate" },
        { "concern": "48-hour window needs teacher guidance on breaks / holidays.", "location": "Band D Do indicator", "severity": "minor" }
      ]
    },
    {
      "role": "curriculum_specificity_reviewer",
      "model": "sonnet",
      "scores_per_dimension": {
        "structural_integrity": 91,
        "specificity": 90,
        "domain_grounding": 94
      },
      "mean_role": 91.67,
      "critique_prose": "Running the blind-band test: strip the band headers and ask whether a reviewer could reconstruct the band order from the content alone. For this KUD, yes — the progression from 'stays in the conversation' (B) to 'articulates the other's interest' (C) to 'initiates a repair attempt' (D) is genuinely ordered, not a vocabulary inflation. Band C cannot be Band B and Band D cannot be Band C on content alone. This passes cleanly.\n\nKnow-layer items pass the exam-question test. 'Position vs interest' is a specific thing you can write a question about. 'Escalation patterns (tit-for-tat, third-party recruitment)' is specific. 'Repair' at Band D is specific enough that a teacher could test a student's grasp of it.\n\nWhere I want to flag: the Understand-layer at Band B — 'conflict is not always bad — it's a moment where a relationship can either weaken or strengthen depending on what people do next' — is strong content but reads a sentence long where it could read shorter. I don't think this is a specificity failure; it's a house-style note. More substantively, the Band B Do indicator 'offers one idea for what to do next even if it is not adopted' contains the phrase 'even if it is not adopted' which is doing real work (t

…(truncated)