@graffiticode/l0175 0.2.0

package/spec/spec.md

@@ -0,0 +1,277 @@
+<!-- SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-4.0 -->
+# L0175 Vocabulary
+
+_Revised: 2026-06-19_
+
+**L0175** is a Graffiticode dialect for composing 5th-grade English Language Arts assessment
+items (Smarter Balanced · Grade 5 · Claim 1). One language serves **multiple learning targets**,
+selected by a required top-level `target`: `c1-t4` (Reasoning & Evidence, literary, RL standards),
+`c1-t11` (Reasoning & Evidence, informational, RI standards), `c1-t9` (Central Ideas,
+informational, RI-1/RI-2), `c1-t8` (Key Details, informational, RI-1/RI-7 — the inference is
+given and the student selects supporting evidence), or `c1-t10` (Word Meanings, informational,
+RI-4/L-4 — the meaning of a targeted word, options authored as `word`/`meaning`) — different
+reading skills, each with its own dimensions, distractor taxonomy, DOK, item types, and stem
+catalog. It is **item-first**: a
+program declares its `target`, then authors the `outcome`s (questions) first — each with a unique
+`id`, a `focus` naming its correct claim, and an explicit `stem` from that target's guideline
+catalog — then the supported and distractor `claim`s (each distractor `targets` the question(s)
+it foils) and the evidence `source`s for one passage. The compiler **composes** each outcome by
+taking its `focus` claim, drawing that question's foils from the distractors that `targets` it,
+and assembling a finished item (`ebsr`, `hot-text`, or `short-text`). It selects and validates
+authored content against the target profile; it does not generate content or stems.
+
+The core language specification (syntax, semantics, base library) is here:
+[Graffiticode Language Specification](./graffiticode-language-spec.html)
+
+## Authoring shape
+
+A program is **one flat builder chain** ending in a single `{}..`:
+
+```
+target c1-t4
+title "Optional assessment title"
+passage "Heading"
+type literary
+lines [ "First paragraph…" "Second paragraph…" ]   /* one entry per paragraph */
+claims [ claim ... {} claim ... {} ]
+evidence [ source ... {} source ... {} ]
+outcomes [ outcome ... {} outcome ... {} ]
+{}..
+```
+
+Three function roles make up the idiom:
+
+- **Attribute functions** are arity-2 `(value, continuation)` and merge one key into the
+  record: `text "…" cont` → `{ ...cont, text: "…" }`. They are generic — the same `id`,
+  `status`, `text`, `type` appear on several forms — and the element wrapper validates them in
+  context.
+- **Collection builders** (`claims`, `evidence`, `outcomes`, `rubric`) and the passage forms
+  (`passage`, `type`, `lines`, `title`) are arity-2 and thread **one shared continuation**, so
+  the whole top level is a single chain closed by **one** trailing `{}`.
+- **Element wrappers** (`claim`, `source`, `outcome`, `band`) are arity-1; each element's own
+  attribute chain is terminated by its **own** `{}` inside the list.
+
+Free text (`text`, `rationale`, `subject`, `stem`, the passage heading) and id labels
+(`id`, `focus`, `cites`, `supports`, `targets`) are **quoted strings**; closed-enum values
+(`ebsr`, `character`, `misreads-detail`, `rl-1`, …) are **bare kebab-case identifiers**;
+`line`, `score`, `plausibility`, and `grade` are **numbers**.
+
+---
+
+# Function reference
+
+## Structural forms
+
+| Form | Arity | Takes | Description |
+| :--- | :---: | :--- | :--- |
+| `target` | 2 | tag | Top level: the learning target — `c1-t4` (R&E literary, RL), `c1-t11` (R&E informational, RI), `c1-t9` (Central Ideas informational, RI-1/RI-2), `c1-t8` (Key Details informational, RI-1/RI-7), or `c1-t10` (Word Meanings informational, RI-4/L-4). Selects the valid dimensions/standards, distractor taxonomy, DOK, item types, and stem catalog. Always author one; defaults to `c1-t4` if omitted. |
+| `title` | 2 | string | Optional assessment title; echoed on the composed output. |
+| `grade` | 2 | number | Optional top-level reading-level target (e.g. `grade 5`). Defaults to the target/guideline's grade (5 for `c1-t4`/`c1-t11`); echoed on the output. The compiler estimates the passage's reading level and warns when it reads above this grade. |
+| `passage` | 2 | string | Opens the stimulus; the value is the passage **heading**. Chains with `type` and `lines`. |
+| `type` | 2 | tag | On the passage: `literary` \| `informational`. On an `outcome`: the item type `ebsr` \| `hot-text` \| `short-text` \| `multiple-choice` \| `multi-select`. |
+| `lines` | 2 | string list | The passage **paragraphs** (one entry per paragraph by default), **auto-numbered from 1** (the numbers `source.line` refers to). Use finer units (sentences) only when a task needs them, e.g. click-the-sentence Hot Text. |
+| `claims` | 2 | list | The collection of candidate `claim`s (the inference graph's nodes). |
+| `claim` | 1 | chain | One candidate inference/conclusion statement — either the correct answer or a foil. |
+| `evidence` | 2 | list | The collection of evidence `source`s. |
+| `source` | 1 | chain | One passage line tagged by its support role. |
+| `outcomes` | 2 | list | The collection of intended items. |
+| `outcome` | 1 | chain | One item to compose; varying it projects the same pool into a different item. |
+| `rubric` | 2 | band list | On a `short-text` outcome: the scoring `band`s (defaults to 0/1/2 if omitted). |
+| `band` | 1 | chain | One rubric row (a `score` + a `descriptor`). |
+
+## Identity & references
+
+| Attribute | On | Value | Description |
+| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
+| `id` | claim, source, outcome | string | Stable identifier. Claim/source ids are referenced by `cites` / `supports` / `focus`; an outcome's id is referenced by a distractor's `targets`. **Must be unique** within claims, within sources, and within outcomes (duplicates are a hard error). |
+| `cites` | claim | id list | The evidence `source` ids this claim draws on. For the correct claim, the `directly-supports` members become Part B's correct option(s). |
+| `supports` | source | id list | The claim ids this evidence backs — *truly* for the correct claim, or *temptingly* for a distractor claim. A source tied to both the correct claim and a foil is what makes a Part B option plausibly support more than one Part A option (the no-giveaway rule). |
+| `focus` | outcome | id | **Required** — the supported claim that is this question's correct answer. |
+| `targets` | distractor | id list | **Required on distractors** — the outcome id(s) of the question(s) this foil is authored against. Composition draws an item's foils only from the distractors that target it. |
+
+`cites` / `supports` references that don't resolve produce a **warning** (the item still
+composes). A `focus` that isn't a supported claim, or a `targets` to a missing outcome, is a
+**hard error** — the binding is the contract.
+
+## Claim content
+
+| Attribute | Value | Req. | Description |
+| :--- | :--- | :---: | :--- |
+| `status` | tag | ✓ | `supported` (a valid inference — a candidate correct answer) or `distractor` (a foil). |
+| `dimension` | tag | ✓ on supported | The inference target (`character`, `theme`, `point-of-view`, …). Required on supported claims (it must match the outcome); on distractors the binding is by `targets`, so it is not needed. |
+| `text` | string | ✓ | The statement a student reads as an option. |
+| `error-type` | tag | ✓ on distractor | Which student misconception the foil targets: `misreads-detail`, `erroneous-inference`, or `faulty-reasoning`. |
+| `rationale` | string | ✓ on distractor | Why a student would plausibly choose this foil (the error it targets). Surfaced in the item's `distractorAnalysis`. |
+| `targets` | id list | ✓ on distractor | The outcome id(s) this foil is authored against (see *Identity & references*). |
+| `plausibility` | number 0–1 | — | Optional author override for how tempting the foil is. If omitted, the compiler computes a score from evidence overlap, structural parallelism, and error type, and uses it to pick the strongest foil per error type among those targeting the outcome. |
+| `subject` | string | — | Who/what the claim is about (e.g. `"Mara"`, or a specific reference like `"Cortez's age"`); echoed in review metadata. |
+| `standard` | tag | — | The companion RL standard the claim addresses; emitted on the item. |
+| `dok` | tag | — | The claim's cognitive demand (`r-dok3`). |
+
+## Evidence content
+
+| Attribute | Value | Description |
+| :--- | :--- | :--- |
+| `status` | tag | The support role: `directly-supports` (real backing for its claim), `supports-wrong-claim` (real text that *seems* to back a foil), or `irrelevant` (off-point — a Part B distractor). |
+| `line` | number | The numbered passage entry (a paragraph by default, 1-based) this source draws on. Must be within the passage (out-of-range → warning). |
+| `quote` | string | A verbatim excerpt shown instead of the whole `line`. For EBSR Part B, set this to the exact supporting **sentence** (with `line` pointing at its paragraph) so options stay sentence-tight. |
+| `supports` | id list | See *Identity & references* — the claim(s) this evidence backs. |
+| `rationale` | string | Optional: why this line is a tempting-but-wrong Part B foil. If omitted, composition synthesizes one from the source's status. |
+
+## Outcome & stem control
+
+| Attribute | Value | Req. | Description |
+| :--- | :--- | :---: | :--- |
+| `id` | string | ✓ | Unique question id; distractors `targets` it. |
+| `type` | tag | ✓ | The task model: `ebsr`, `hot-text`, `short-text`, `multiple-choice`, or `multi-select`. |
+| `dimension` | tag | ✓ | The skill facet the item assesses (must match the focus claim's dimension). |
+| `focus` | id \| id list | ✓ | The supported claim that is the correct answer; on `multi-select` a **list** of ids = the correct set (see *Identity & references*). |
+| `stem` | string | ✓ | The Part A / single-question stem (or, for `short-text`, the prompt), authored from the guideline's Appropriate-Stem catalog (`stems.md`). |
+| `stem-b` | string | ✓ on ebsr | The EBSR Part B stem, authored from the catalog. (Hot Text's Part B instruction is fixed; Short Text has no Part B.) |
+| `subject` | string | — | The noun phrase the stem is about, e.g. `"Mara"` or `"the letter Cortez burned"`; echoed in review metadata. |
+| `standard` | tag | — | The primary RL standard; `rl-1` (cite evidence) is added automatically, and the dimension's companion standard is inferred. |
+| `dok` | tag | — | Target cognitive demand (default: the target's — `r-dok3` for R&E, `r-dok2` for T9; a `short-text` summary is `r-dok3`). |
+| `rubric` | band list | — | `short-text` only — replace the default 0/1/2 rubric with authored `band`s. |
+
+## Rubric band
+
+| Attribute | Value | Description |
+| :--- | :--- | :--- |
+| `score` | number | The points this band awards (e.g. `2`, `1`, `0`). |
+| `descriptor` | string | What a response at this score looks like. |
+
+---
+
+## Enumerations
+
+- **`target`**: `c1-t4` (R&E literary), `c1-t11` (R&E informational), `c1-t9` (Central Ideas informational), `c1-t8` (Key Details informational), `c1-t10` (Word Meanings informational) — required, top level
+- **item `type`**: `ebsr`, `hot-text`, `short-text`, `multiple-choice`, `multi-select` (allowed set is per-target) · **passage `type`**: `literary`, `informational`
+- **`dimension` (c1-t4)**: `character`, `setting`, `event`, `point-of-view`, `theme`, `topic`, `narrators-feelings`, `character-relationship`
+- **`dimension` (c1-t11)**: `relationships-interactions`, `author-use-of-information`, `point-of-view`, `purpose`, `authors-opinion`
+- **`dimension` (c1-t9)**: `central-idea`, `key-detail`, `summary` · **(c1-t8)**: `supporting-evidence` · **(c1-t10)**: `word-meaning`
+- **claim `status`**: `supported`, `distractor` · **source `status`**: `directly-supports`, `supports-wrong-claim`, `irrelevant` · **meaning `status` (c1-t10)**: `correct`, `distractor`
+- **`error-type` (c1-t4 / c1-t11)**: `misreads-detail`, `erroneous-inference`, `faulty-reasoning` · **(c1-t9)**: `too-narrow`, `too-broad`, `misreads-detail`, `insignificant` · **(c1-t8)**: none — non-supporting sources · **(c1-t10)**: `other-meaning`, `misinterprets`, `wrong-context`
+- **`standard` (c1-t4)**: `rl-1`, `rl-3`, `rl-6`, `rl-9` · **(c1-t11)**: `ri-1`, `ri-3`, `ri-6`, `ri-7`, `ri-8`, `ri-9` · **(c1-t9)**: `ri-1`, `ri-2` · **(c1-t8)**: `ri-1`, `ri-7` · **(c1-t10)**: `ri-4`, `l-4`, `l-4a`, `l-4b`, `l-4c`, `l-5c` · **`dok`**: `r-dok1`, `r-dok2`, `r-dok3`
+
+## How composition uses the vocabulary
+
+For each outcome, the compiler takes the `focus` supported claim as the correct answer and
+draws the foils from the distractors that `targets` that outcome (most plausible per error
+type), then:
+
+- **ebsr** — Part A: the correct claim + 3 targeted distractor claims; Part B: a
+  `directly-supports` line + 3 foils drawn from `supports-wrong-claim` and `irrelevant` sources.
+- **hot-text** — Part A as above; Part B exposes every passage line as selectable, with the
+  correct claim's `directly-supports` lines marked correct.
+- **short-text** — the authored prompt plus a 0/1/2 `rubric`; no distractors.
+
+It emits `distractorAnalysis` (every foil's error type/status + rationale + the claim it ties
+to + plausibility), an `answerKey`, the matched `standards` and `dok`, and `warnings`.
+**Hard errors** (invalid enum; missing `id`/`focus`/`stem`; distractor missing its `rationale`
+or `targets`; a `focus`/`targets` that doesn't resolve; fewer than 3 foils targeting an
+option item; duplicate `id`) fail the compile and carry source coordinates. **Warnings** (thin
+targeted distractor pool, thin Part B pool, dangling `cites`/`supports`, hot-text ambiguity)
+are non-fatal and ride on the item.
+
+## Example
+
+An EBSR item about a character's motivation, plus a short-text item with an authored rubric:
+
+```
+target c1-t4
+title "The Tide Pool"
+passage "The Tide Pool"
+type literary
+lines [
+  "Mara crouched at the edge of the tide pool, ignoring the picnic behind her."
+  "Her brother called twice, but she did not turn around."
+  "A tiny crab scuttled under a rock, and Mara smiled for the first time all day."
+]
+claims [
+  claim id "c1"
+    status supported
+    dimension character
+    subject "Mara"
+    standard rl-1
+    text "Mara is more interested in the tide pool than in her family's picnic."
+    cites [
+      "e1"
+      "e3"
+    ] {}
+  claim id "c2"
+    status distractor
+    error-type misreads-detail
+    plausibility 0.8
+    targets [ "q1" ]
+    text "Mara is angry at her brother."
+    rationale "Not turning around shows absorption, not anger."
+    cites [
+      "e2"
+    ] {}
+  claim id "c3"
+    status distractor
+    error-type erroneous-inference
+    targets [ "q1" ]
+    text "Mara dislikes the outdoors."
+    rationale "Contradicted by her smile in line 3."
+    cites [
+      "e2"
+    ] {}
+  claim id "c4"
+    status distractor
+    error-type faulty-reasoning
+    targets [ "q1" ]
+    text "Because Mara is quiet, she must be upset."
+    rationale "Treats quiet as upset without support."
+    cites [
+      "e2"
+    ] {}
+]
+evidence [
+  source id "e1"
+    line 1
+    status directly-supports
+    supports [
+      "c1"
+    ] {}
+  source id "e2"
+    line 2
+    status supports-wrong-claim
+    supports [
+      "c1"
+      "c2"
+    ] {}
+  source id "e3"
+    line 3
+    status directly-supports
+    supports [
+      "c1"
+    ] {}
+]
+outcomes [
+  outcome id "q1"
+    type ebsr
+    dimension character
+    subject "Mara"
+    standard rl-1
+    focus "c1"
+    stem "Which of these inferences about Mara is supported by the passage?"
+    stem-b "Which sentence(s) from the passage best support your answer in Part A?" {}
+  outcome id "q2"
+    type short-text
+    dimension character
+    subject "Mara"
+    standard rl-1
+    focus "c1"
+    stem "What inference can be made about Mara? Explain using key details from the passage to support your answer."
+    rubric [
+      band score 2
+        descriptor "Valid inference with specific evidence." {}
+      band score 1
+        descriptor "Partial inference or weak evidence." {}
+      band score 0
+        descriptor "No valid inference or no evidence." {}
+    ] {}
+]
+{}..
+```

package/spec/stems.md

@@ -0,0 +1,374 @@
+<!-- SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-4.0 -->
+# L0175 Appropriate-Stem Catalog (SBAC · Grade 5 · Claim 1)
+
+_Revised: 2026-06-24_
+
+The **code generator authors each question's stem from this catalog** and emits it on the
+outcome (`stem`, and `stem-b` on EBSR). The compiler uses the authored text verbatim — it does
+not synthesize stems (it DOES synthesize the Hot-Text Part B selection line). These stems are
+transcribed **verbatim** from the guidelines' "Appropriate Stems" (single-passage only;
+dual-text-stimuli stems are out of scope).
+
+**First match your program's `target`, then use that target's catalog below:**
+- **`c1-t4`** (Reasoning & Evidence, literary) → `packages/core/data/E.G5.C1.T4 Reasoning & Evidence.pdf`
+- **`c1-t11`** (Reasoning & Evidence, informational) → `packages/core/data/E.G5.C1.T11 Reasoning & Evidence.pdf`
+- **`c1-t9`** (Central Ideas, informational) → `packages/core/data/E.G5.C1.T9 Central Ideas.pdf`
+- **`c1-t8`** (Key Details, informational) → `packages/core/data/E.G5.C1.T8 Key Details.pdf`
+- **`c1-t10`** (Word Meanings, informational) → `packages/core/data/E.G5.C1.T10 Word Meanings.pdf`
+
+## How to use this catalog
+
+1. Use the section for your `target`.
+2. Pick the stem that matches your **item `type`** and the task. Task-model numbering is
+   per-target and differs between targets — match by item type, not by number. (R&E targets:
+   EBSR=TM1, Hot-Text=TM2, Short-Text=TM3. T9 Central Ideas: Multiple-Choice=TM1,
+   Multi-Select=TM2, EBSR=TM3, Hot-Text=TM4, Short-Text=TM5. T8 Key Details: Multiple-Choice=TM1,
+   Multi-Select=TM2, Hot-Text=TM3. T10 Word Meanings: Multiple-Choice=TM1, Multi-Select=TM2,
+   Hot-Text=TM3.)
+3. Pick the **one stem template** that matches the task and the dimension, and fill its
+   bracketed `[...]` slot.
+
+**Specificity rule (required, both targets).** The `[...]` slot must name the concrete thing the
+question is about — a character's name (`Mother`), a specific event (`the turkey-feeding`), a
+specific idea (`the relationship between the bridge designs`), the author's point of view, etc.
+It is the same string you put in the outcome's `subject`. Do **not** leave it generic
+(`the character`) and do **not** pad it (`the theme of the passage` → use `the theme`; the stem
+already ends "…supported by the passage"). A specific subject makes the four choices discriminating.
+
+---
+
+# Target 4 (`c1-t4`) — literary
+
+## Task Model 1 — EBSR (two-part selected response)
+
+**Lead-in:** This question has two parts. First, answer part A. Then, answer part B.
+
+**Part A (`stem`) — pick one:**
+- Which of these inferences about [...] is supported by the passage?
+- What inference can be made about [...]?
+- What inference can be made about the narrator's feelings toward [...]?
+- What inference can be made about [character's name]'s relationship with [character's name]?
+- Which of these conclusions about [...] is supported by the passage?
+- What conclusion can be drawn about [...]?
+- What conclusion can be drawn about the narrator's feelings toward [...]?
+- What conclusion can be drawn about [character's name]'s relationship with [character's name]?
+- What did the author most likely mean by including [...] in the passage?
+
+(The `[...]` slot is `[provide character's name / setting / event / author's point of view /
+theme / topic / etc.]`.)
+
+**Part B (`stem-b`) — pick one:**
+- Which sentence(s) from the passage best support your answer in part A?
+- Which sentence(s) from the passage best support the [inference made / conclusion drawn] in part A?
+
+## Task Model 2 — Hot Text (select text)
+
+**Lead-in:** This question has two parts. First, answer part A. Then, answer part B.
+
+**Part A (`stem`) — pick one:**
+- Click on the statement that best provides an inference about [...] that is supported by the passage.
+- Click on the statement that best provides an inference that can be made about the narrator's feelings toward [...].
+- Click on the statement that best provides an inference that can be made about [character's name]'s relationship with [character's name].
+- Click on the statement that best provides a conclusion that can be drawn about [...].
+- Click on the statement that best provides a conclusion that can be drawn about the narrator's feelings toward [...].
+- Click on the statement that best provides a conclusion that can be drawn about [character's name]'s relationship with [character's name].
+- Click on the statement that best describes what the author most likely meant by including [...] in the passage.
+
+**Part B:** fixed by the compiler (you do not author it) — "Click N sentence(s) from the passage
+that support your answer in Part A," where N is the exact per-item count (one less than the valid
+count, floored at 1, capped at 3). **Any selection of N sentences from the valid set is correct**
+(a superset), so **author ≥3 `directly-supports` sentences with exact `quote`s** so the asked
+count is ≥2 with real choice. **Author only the Part A *statement* stem above; never author a
+"click/select the sentences…" instruction as the Part A `stem`** (that is Part B's job). If a
+request says "select the sentences that show [X]", that describes the Part B selection — author
+Part A as a statement prompt about [X] and mark the sentences that show [X] as `directly-supports`
+evidence (with exact `quote`s).
+
+## Task Model 3 — Short Text (constructed response)
+
+Author as `stem` (the prompt); every Short Text stem ends with the explain clause:
+
+- What inference can be made about [...]? Explain using key details from the passage to support your answer.
+- What inference can be made about the narrator's feelings toward [...]? Explain using key details from the passage to support your answer.
+- What inference can be made about [character's name]'s relationship with [character's name]? Explain using key details from the passage to support your answer.
+- What conclusion can be drawn about [...]? Explain using key details from the passage to support your answer.
+- What conclusion can be drawn about the narrator's feelings toward [...]? Explain using key details from the passage to support your answer.
+- What conclusion can be drawn about [character's name]'s relationship with [character's name]? Explain using key details from the passage to support your answer.
+
+(`[...]` slot here is `[provide character's name / setting / event / theme / topic]`.)
+
+## Worked examples (specific slot fills)
+
+- character / inference / EBSR →
+  `stem "Which of these inferences about Mother is supported by the passage?"`
+  `stem-b "Which sentence(s) from the passage best support your answer in part A?"`
+- point-of-view / inference / EBSR →
+  `stem "What inference can be made about the narrator's point of view?"`
+- theme / inference / EBSR →
+  `stem "Which of these inferences about the theme is supported by the passage?"`  ✓
+  (not "…about the theme of the passage is supported by the passage?" — redundant)
+- author-intent / EBSR (specific event) →
+  `stem "What did the author most likely mean by including the scarecrow in the passage?"`
+- theme / inference / Short Text →
+  `stem "What inference can be made about the theme? Explain using key details from the passage to support your answer."`
+
+---
+
+# Target 11 (`c1-t11`) — informational
+
+Informational dimensions: `relationships-interactions`, `author-use-of-information`,
+`point-of-view`, `purpose`, `authors-opinion`. The `[...]` slot is the guideline's
+`[provide example of relationships or interactions between individuals, events, ideas, or
+concepts / author's use of information / point of view / purpose]` (or, for an opinion question,
+`the author's opinion of [idea/concept]`; for author-intent, `[target detail]`). Note T11 says
+"key **evidence**" (T4 said "key details"), and Part B units are
+`sentence(s) / paragraph(s) / section(s)`.
+
+## Task Model 1 — EBSR (two-part selected response)
+
+**Lead-in:** This question has two parts. First, answer part A. Then, answer part B.
+
+**Part A (`stem`) — pick one:**
+- Which of these inferences about the [...] is supported by the passage?
+- What inference can be made about the [...]?
+- What inference can be made about the author's opinion of [idea/concept in the text]?
+- Which of these conclusions about the [...] is supported by the passage?
+- What conclusion can be drawn about the [...]?
+- What conclusion can be drawn about the author's opinion of [idea/concept in the text]?
+- What did the author most likely mean by using [target detail] in the text?
+
+**Part B (`stem-b`) — pick one:**
+- Which sentence(s) from the passage best support your answer in part A?
+- Which sentence(s) from the passage best show the [inference made / conclusion drawn] in part A?
+
+## Task Model 2 — Hot Text (select text)
+
+**Lead-in:** This question has two parts. First, answer part A. Then, answer part B.
+
+**Part A (`stem`) — pick one:**
+- Click on the statement that best provides an inference about the [...] that is supported by the passage.
+- Click on the statement that best provides an inference that can be made about the author's opinion of [idea/concept in the text].
+- Click on the statement that best provides a conclusion that can be drawn about the [...].
+- Click on the statement that best provides a conclusion that can be drawn about the author's opinion of [idea/concept in the text].
+- Click on the statement that best describes what the author most likely meant by using [target detail] in the text.
+
+**Part B:** fixed by the compiler (you do not author it) — "Click N sentence(s) from the passage
+that support your answer in Part A," where N is the exact per-item count (one less than the valid
+count, floored at 1, capped at 3). **Any selection of N sentences from the valid set is correct**
+(a superset), so **author ≥3 `directly-supports` sentences with exact `quote`s** so the asked
+count is ≥2 with real choice. **Author only the Part A *statement* stem above; never author a
+"click/select the sentences…" instruction as the Part A `stem`** (that is Part B's job). If a
+request says "select the sentences that show [X]", that describes the Part B selection — author
+Part A as a statement prompt about [X] and mark the sentences that show [X] as `directly-supports`
+evidence (with exact `quote`s).
+
+## Task Model 3 — Short Text (constructed response)
+
+Author as `stem`; every Short Text stem ends with the explain clause ("key **evidence**"):
+
+- What inference can be made about the [...]? Explain using key evidence from the passage to support your answer.
+- What inference can be made about the author's opinion about [idea/concept in the text]? Explain using key evidence from the passage to support your answer.
+- What conclusion can be drawn about the [...]? Explain using key evidence from the passage to support your answer.
+- What conclusion can be drawn about the author's opinion about [idea/concept in the text]? Explain using key evidence from the passage to support your answer.
+- What did the author most likely mean by using [target detail] in the text? Explain using key evidence from the passage to support your answer.
+
+## Worked examples (T11, specific slot fills)
+
+- relationships-interactions / inference / EBSR →
+  `stem "Which of these inferences about the relationship between the bridge designs is supported by the passage?"`
+  `stem-b "Which sentence(s) from the passage best support your answer in part A?"`
+- author-use-of-information / inference / EBSR →
+  `stem "What inference can be made about the author's use of statistics in the report?"`
+- point-of-view / EBSR →
+  `stem "Which of these conclusions about the author's point of view is supported by the passage?"`
+- authors-opinion / Short Text →
+  `stem "What conclusion can be drawn about the author's opinion about renewable energy? Explain using key evidence from the passage to support your answer."`
+
+---
+
+# Target 9 (`c1-t9`) — Central Ideas (informational)
+
+A **different skill** from Reasoning & Evidence: synthesize and condense — the **main/central
+idea**, the **key details** that build it, and **summary**. DOK **2** (3 only for the written
+summary). Standards **RI-1 + RI-2**. Dimensions: `central-idea` (the main idea / author's message /
+main problem), `key-detail` (a supporting detail), `summary` (the details that belong in a summary).
+
+**Distractors are a SIGNIFICANCE taxonomy** (usually true statements that just aren't central):
+`too-narrow` (a real supporting detail mistaken for the main idea), `too-broad` (an
+overgeneralization / off-topic claim), `misreads-detail` (a misread), `insignificant` (a minor true
+detail that doesn't belong in a summary). The `[...]` slot names what the question is about (the
+same string as `subject`), e.g. "the passage", "the first paragraph", "the introduction".
+
+## Task Model 1 — Multiple Choice (`type multiple-choice`, single-answer, DOK 2)
+
+Author as `stem`; the `focus` claim is the correct central idea (or, for the missing-detail variant,
+the missing key detail):
+- Which sentence best [shows/tells/describes] the main idea of [the passage / provide section]?
+- Which sentence best [shows/tells/describes] the main problem in the passage?
+- Which sentence best [shows/tells/describes] the author's [message/main idea] in [provide section]?
+- Which [sentence/detail] from the passage best [shows/tells/describes] the main idea?
+- Which sentence best summarizes [the passage / the first paragraph / the introduction]?
+- Which sentence is the best summary of what happens [when/after/during] [provide text event]?
+- Read this summary. [provide summary; one pivotal key event/idea/detail is missing] Which [key event/idea/detail] is missing from the summary?
+
+## Task Model 2 — Multi-Select (`type multi-select`, choose two, DOK 2)
+
+Author as `stem`; `focus` is the **list** of the two correct statements (the correct set):
+- Choose two sentences that best identify the main ideas presented in the passage.
+- Choose two sentences that should be included in a summary of [the passage / provide section].
+
+## Task Model 3 — EBSR (`type ebsr`, two-part, DOK 2)
+
+**Lead-in:** This question has two parts. First, answer part A. Then, answer part B.
+
+**Part A (`stem`) — pick one** (the `focus` claim is the central idea):
+- Which sentence best [shows/tells/describes] the main idea of the passage?
+- Which sentence best [shows/tells/describes] the main problem in the passage?
+- Which sentence best [shows/tells/describes] the author's [message/main idea] in [provide section]?
+
+**Part B (`stem-b`) — pick one** (Part B options are key-detail `source`s):
+- Which [sentence/detail] from the passage best [supports/is an example of] your answer in part A?
+
+## Task Model 5 — Short Text (`type short-text`, constructed response, DOK 3)
+
+Author as `stem`; every Short Text stem ends with the explain clause:
+- Determine the main idea of the passage. Explain using key details from the passage to support your answer.
+- What is the main idea of the passage? Explain using key details from the passage to support your answer.
+- What is the author's [message/point] about [provide text detail that relates to the central idea]? Explain using key ideas from the passage to support your answer.
+- What is the author's main idea in this [paragraph/section]? Explain using key details from the passage to support your answer.
+- Summarize [the first paragraph / the introduction]. Use key [details/events] from the passage in your summary.
+- Summarize what happens [after/during] [provide text event]. Use key [details/events] from the passage in your summary.
+
+## Task Model 4 — Hot Text (`type hot-text`, single-part select-text, DOK 2)
+
+Single-part: the authored `stem` is the whole click instruction (the compiler does not synthesize
+it); the student clicks the sentence(s) that show the main idea. The correct sentences are the
+`focus` claim's directly-supporting `source`s (give each a `quote`):
+- Click on [one/two] [sentence(s)/section(s)] of the text that best [shows/tells/describes] the main idea of [the passage / provide section].
+- Read this summary of the passage. [provide summary; one key event/idea/detail is missing] A [key event/idea/detail] is missing from the summary. Click on the [sentence/section] that includes the missing [event/idea/detail].
+- Click on [one/two] [key details/events] that should be included in a summary of the passage.
+
+## Worked examples (T9, specific slot fills)
+
+- central-idea / Multiple Choice →
+  `stem "Which sentence best shows the main idea of the passage?"`
+- summary / Multi-Select →
+  `stem "Choose two sentences that should be included in a summary of the passage."` with `focus ["s1" "s2"]`
+- central-idea / EBSR →
+  `stem "Which sentence best describes the main idea of the passage?"`
+  `stem-b "Which detail from the passage best supports your answer in part A?"`
+- central-idea / Short Text →
+  `stem "Determine the main idea of the passage. Explain using key details from the passage to support your answer."`
+- central-idea / Hot Text (single-part) →
+  `stem "Click on the sentence that best shows the main idea of the passage."` (the `focus` claim's directly-supporting sources are the correct sentences)
+
+---
+
+# Target 8 (`c1-t8`) — Key Details (informational)
+
+A **different model**: the inference/conclusion is **GIVEN in the stem**, and the student selects
+the **text evidence** that supports it. DOK **1–2**. Standards **RI-1 + RI-7**. Dimension:
+`supporting-evidence`. Item types: `multiple-choice`, `multi-select`, `hot-text` (no EBSR, no
+constructed response).
+
+**Authoring:** author ONE supported `claim` = the given inference (named by the outcome's `focus`)
+and **state that inference in the `stem`**; author `source`s for the options — `directly-supports`
+(the correct evidence; give a `quote` for the exact sentence) and `supports-wrong-claim` /
+`irrelevant` (the distractor evidence, each with a `rationale`). The options are the **sources**,
+not claims; there are no distractor claims.
+
+## Task Model 1 — Multiple Choice (`type multiple-choice`, single-answer, DOK 1–2)
+
+The stem states the inference and asks which evidence supports it:
+- Which [evidence/detail/sentence] from the passage best supports [provide inference or conclusion]?
+- [Provide inference or conclusion based on the passage]. Which [evidence/detail/sentence] from the passage best supports this [inference/conclusion]?
+- The reader can [infer/conclude] [provide inference/conclusion]. Which [evidence/detail/sentence] from the passage best supports this?
+- The author [infers/concludes] that [provide inference/conclusion]. Which [evidence/detail/sentence] from the passage best supports this?
+
+## Task Model 2 — Multi-Select (`type multi-select`, choose two/three, DOK 1–2)
+
+- Choose [two/three] [details/sentences] from the passage that best support the [inference/conclusion] that [provide inference/conclusion].
+- Which [evidence/details/sentences] from the passage best support [provide inference/conclusion]? Select two answers.
+
+## Task Model 3 — Hot Text (`type hot-text`, single-part select-text, DOK 1–2)
+
+Single-part: the authored `stem` states the inference and the click instruction (the compiler does
+not synthesize it); the student clicks the supporting sentence(s):
+- Click the [detail/sentence/set of sentences/paragraph] that best supports [provide inference/conclusion].
+- Click [one/two] [details/sentences] that best support [provide inference/conclusion].
+- [Provide inference/conclusion]. Click the [sentence(s)] from the passage that support this.
+
+## Worked examples (T8, specific slot fills)
+
+- supporting-evidence / Multiple Choice →
+  `stem "Aqueducts brought water to distant cities. Which detail from the passage best supports this conclusion?"` with one supported `claim` (the inference) at `focus`, its directly-supporting `source` the correct option.
+- supporting-evidence / Multi-Select →
+  `stem "Which two details best support the idea that aqueducts carried water far? Select two answers."` (two `directly-supports` sources)
+- supporting-evidence / Hot Text (single-part) →
+  `stem "Aqueducts brought water to distant cities. Click the sentence(s) from the passage that support this."`
+
+---
+
+# Target 10 (`c1-t10`) — Word Meanings (informational)
+
+A **different model**: the question asks for the **meaning of a targeted word/phrase in context**,
+so the answer choices are **meanings** (definitions/synonyms), authored as a `word` with candidate
+`meaning`s — not claims. DOK **1–2**. Standards **RI-4** (always) + the **L-4 family** by strategy:
+context → `l-4a`, Greek/Latin roots & affixes → `l-4b`, word relationships (synonyms/antonyms) →
+`l-5c`, reference materials → `l-4c`. Dimension: `word-meaning`. Item types: `multiple-choice`,
+`multi-select`, and `hot-text` (Task Model 3 — click the word in the excerpt that matches a given
+definition).
+
+**Authoring:** author a `word` (the targeted word, with `line`/`quote` for its context) holding a
+`meanings` list — one (MC) or ≥2 (Multi-Select) `status correct` meanings + `status distractor`
+meanings, each distractor with a T10 `error-type` and `rationale`. The outcome's `focus` names the
+word; the stem states the word and its context sentence. Distractor taxonomy: `other-meaning`
+(another meaning of the word, ignoring context), `misinterprets` (misreads the word/context),
+`wrong-context` (uses the wrong context).
+
+## Task Model 1 — Multiple Choice (`type multiple-choice`, single-answer, DOK 1–2)
+
+The stem shows the sentence with the targeted word and asks for its meaning:
+- Read the sentence(s). [excerpt] What is the meaning of the word [word]?
+- Read the sentence(s). [excerpt] What does the word [word] most likely mean?
+- Read the sentence(s). [excerpt] Which word or phrase best states the meaning of [word]?
+- Read the sentence(s). [excerpt] Pick the word or phrase that best defines [word] as it is used in the sentence(s).
+- Read the dictionary entry. [(part of speech) 1. definition] Which word from the text best matches the dictionary entry?
+- Read the sentence(s). [excerpt] What does the [root/affix] in the word [word] mean?
+
+## Task Model 2 — Multi-Select (`type multi-select`, choose two, DOK 1–2)
+
+- Read the sentence(s). [excerpt] What does the word [word] most likely mean? Choose two answers.
+- Read the sentence(s). [excerpt] What does the use of [word] tell the reader about [idea/event] in the passage? Choose two answers.
+
+## Task Model 3 — Hot Text / click-the-word (`type hot-text`, single-part, DOK 1–2)
+
+The reverse: the stem gives a **definition**; the student clicks the word in the passage that
+matches it. Author the focus `word` (the correct one) as the outcome's `focus`, giving it the
+`line` of its paragraph, then the **distractor candidate words** one of two ways:
+
+1. **As more `word`s** in the `words` list (`text` only — no `meanings`), or
+2. **As the focus word's distractor `meanings`** whose `text` IS the candidate word — a single word,
+   carrying an `error-type` + `rationale`. For hot-text the meaning text must be the literal word to
+   click, **not** a definition. (This reuses the MC/MS shape and is what the generator most often
+   produces.)
+
+**All candidates must be words that appear in the focus word's paragraph.** The compiler shows the
+whole paragraph (from the focus word's `line`) and makes the candidate words clickable, with the
+focus word correct. **The `stem` is just the instruction + definition — do NOT paste the paragraph
+into the stem; it is shown separately** (the compiler warns if the stem contains it). Candidates not
+in the focus word's paragraph are warned and dropped. ⚠ If you author *only* the focus word with a
+real multi-word definition (no candidate words/single-word meanings), the compiler can't find
+candidates and falls back to making **every** content word clickable — list the candidate words to
+avoid that. Stems:
+- Read the dictionary entry. [(part of speech) definition] Click on the word in the sentence that most closely matches the definition.
+- The author uses a word that means [definition]. Click on the word in the sentence that best shows that meaning.
+
+## Worked examples (T10, specific slot fills)
+
+- word-meaning / Multiple Choice →
+  `word id "w1" text "aqueduct" line 1 quote "The aqueduct carried water for miles." meanings [ meaning id "m1" status correct text "a channel built to carry water" {} meaning id "m2" status distractor error-type other-meaning text "a cargo boat" rationale "another meaning, ignores context" {} … ] {}`
+  `stem "Read the sentence: \"The aqueduct carried water for miles.\" What does the word aqueduct most likely mean?"` with `focus "w1"`, `standard l-4a`
+- word-meaning / Hot Text (click the word) →
+  `words [ word id "w1" text "aqueduct" line 8 {} word id "w2" text "causeways" {} word id "w3" text "canals" {} word id "w4" text "distributed" {} ]`
+  `stem "Read the dictionary entry: aqueduct (noun) a channel that carries water. Click the word in the paragraph that matches this definition."` with `focus "w1"` — line 8's paragraph is shown and the authored candidates (aqueduct, causeways, canals, distributed — all in that paragraph) are clickable; "aqueduct" is correct.