12 × 13 → 36
The learner completes only the ones row.
Pilot question and scope
A bounded pilot should answer a practical question: can prerequisite-level diagnosis create useful intervention groups and verifiable repair evidence for one cohort of up to 30 learners across six instructional weeks without adding unreasonable teacher workload?
30learner seats in the example cohort
6 weeksinstructional window after Week 0 setup
Weeklyrepair-group review cadence
Fresh checksverification after targeted repair
1. Baseline prerequisite-gap map
The first useful school output is not a single class score. It is a map of the prerequisite gaps creating the most immediate instructional friction.
Place value
8 learners
Fraction meaning
6 learners
Division models
4 learners
Multiplicative reasoning
3 learners
Decimal place value
2 learners
Representative sample counts. Learners may appear in more than one repair group, so rows are not intended to sum to 30.
2. Worked learner evidence trail
The evidence unit links the learner's response to the diagnosed cause, the repair activity, and a different mastery question. This is illustrative, not a claim about a real student.
Missing tens row
Trace to place value inside two-digit multiplication.
120 + 36 = 156
Make 12 × 10 and 12 × 3 explicit before recombining.
14 × 12 → 168
Use new numbers and require the learner to explain the decomposition.
3. Weekly evidence objects
A pilot should give a teacher inspectable objects that support a decision, not just a usage dashboard.
| Evidence object | Current product status | School decision use |
|---|---|---|
| Misconception tags | Available in demo model | Group learners by likely cause of error rather than broad test score. |
| Prerequisite-gap heatmap | Dashboard demo / alpha | Choose the next small-group teaching target. |
| Repair activity record | Available in alpha slices | See what intervention was actually attempted. |
| Fresh mastery checks | Available in alpha slices | Verify transfer on unseen questions after repair. |
| Spaced review queue | Alpha workflow | Revisit repaired skills before evidence fades. |
| End-of-pilot export | Pilot packet / alpha | Support school review, handoff, and scale/no-scale decision. |
4. End-of-pilot decision sheet
The report should end with evidence the school can interrogate. These fields are intentionally blank in this sample rather than populated with invented outcomes.
Verified repairWhich prerequisite gaps were repaired and then demonstrated on fresh questions?
Pilot result field — populated from real cohort evidence
Still unresolvedWhich gaps remain, and which learners need another teaching route or human review?
Pilot result field — populated from real cohort evidence
Teacher workflowWere the groupings and evidence useful enough to influence actual intervention planning?
Pilot review field — completed with the school team
Scale decisionContinue, modify, expand, or stop based on evidence, workload, privacy, and procurement fit.
School decision field — no automatic expansion assumption
Evidence provenance and claim boundary
- This page contains representative sample data and worked examples only.
- It does not report measured improvement from a completed live school pilot.
- A real pilot should agree cohort scope, consent, baseline, reporting cadence, success criteria, and data-export boundaries before launch.
- Any future outcome claim should identify the cohort, time period, assessment method, denominator, and comparison basis.