@machinespirits/eval 0.1.2 → 0.2.1

package/config/suggestion-scenarios.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,1399 @@
+# Suggestion Evaluation Scenarios
+#
+# Extracted from evaluation-rubric.yaml to separate scenario definitions
+# from rubric dimensions and scoring configuration.
+#
+# Each scenario simulates a learner state to test tutor response quality.
+#
+# Categories:
+#   core       — fundamental learner states (6 scenarios)
+#   mood       — emotional affect testing (2 scenarios)
+#   benchmark  — cross-model benchmarking (1 scenario)
+#   recognition — Hegelian recognition dynamics (3 scenarios)
+#   multi_turn — multi-step dialogue arcs (3 scenarios)
+
+name: "Suggestion Scenarios"
+version: "2.0.0"
+
+scenarios:
+  # ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
+  # CORE SCENARIOS
+  # ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
+
+  new_user_first_visit:
+    type: suggestion
+    id: new_user_first_visit
+    category: core
+    name: "New User - First Visit"
+    description: "Brand new user with no history"
+    is_new_user: true
+    course_ids: ["479"]
+    learner_context: |
+      ### User Profile
+      - **New user** - just getting started, needs orientation
+      - Focus on welcoming and helping them find a starting point
+
+      ### Current Session
+      - No current lecture
+      - No previous activity
+    expected_behavior: "Suggest first lecture in curriculum with welcoming tone"
+    required_elements:
+      - "479-lecture-1"
+    forbidden_elements:
+      - "What's on your mind"
+      - "What would you like to explore"
+    min_acceptable_score: 70
+
+  returning_user_mid_course:
+    type: suggestion
+    id: returning_user_mid_course
+    category: core
+    name: "Returning User - Mid Course"
+    description: "Returning user partway through a course"
+    current_content: "479-lecture-2"
+    is_new_user: false
+    learner_context: |
+      ### User Profile
+      - **Returning user** - 5 sessions, 47 total events
+      - Has some familiarity with the platform
+
+      ### Current Session
+      - **Currently viewing**: 479-lecture-2
+        - Lecture: "Technology and Pedagogy" from EPOL 479
+      - Pages visited this session: 479-lecture-1, 479-lecture-2
+
+      ### Overall Learning Progress
+      - Lectures viewed: Welcome to Machine Learning, Technology and Pedagogy
+      - Total activities completed: 3
+    expected_behavior: "Suggest next lecture (479-lecture-3) or related activity"
+    required_elements:
+      - "479-lecture"
+    forbidden_elements: []
+    min_acceptable_score: 75
+
+  struggling_learner:
+    type: suggestion
+    id: struggling_learner
+    category: core
+    name: "Struggling Learner"
+    description: "User showing multiple struggle signals"
+    current_content: "479-lecture-3"
+    is_new_user: false
+    learner_context: |
+      ### User Profile
+      - **Returning user** - 3 sessions, 28 total events
+      - Machine Spirit affinity: Neutral (no strong preference yet)
+      - Preferred study time: Afternoon
+
+      ### Learning Progress
+      - **Enrolled courses**: EPOL 479 (Philosophy of Education Technology)
+      - **Completed lectures**: 479-lecture-1, 479-lecture-2
+      - **Activities completed**: 2/8 in course (25%)
+      - **Course progress**: Week 3 content, but struggling with core concepts
+
+      ### Learning Journey (Recent Sessions)
+      | Session | Date | Duration | Lectures | Struggles |
+      |---------|------|----------|----------|-----------|
+      | 3 | Today | 32 min | 479-lecture-3 | 4 signals |
+      | 2 | Yesterday | 18 min | 479-lecture-2 | 1 signal |
+      | 1 | 3 days ago | 45 min | 479-lecture-1, 479-lecture-2 | 0 signals |
+
+      ### Current Session
+      - **Currently viewing**: 479-lecture-3 (Dialectical Learning)
+      - **Time on page**: 12 minutes
+      - **Scroll depth**: 45%
+      - **Struggle signals detected**: 4 (may need help)
+      - Activities attempted: 2, completed: 0
+
+      ### Struggle Analysis
+      - **Primary struggle area**: Activity quiz-479-3 (retried 3 times)
+      - **Concept difficulty**: dialectic, synthesis, thesis-antithesis
+      - **Pattern**: Quick initial attempts followed by repeated retries
+
+      ### Recent Activity Timeline
+      [14:20] Opened lecture: "Dialectical Learning"
+      [14:25] Scrolled to 30%
+      [14:28] Scroll stopped (possible reading difficulty)
+      [14:32] Started activity: quiz-479-3
+      [14:33] Retrying activity (incorrect answer)
+      [14:34] Retrying activity (incorrect answer)
+      [14:35] Retrying activity (incorrect answer)
+      [14:36] Paused interaction
+
+      ### Study Tools Usage
+      - Bookmarks created: 1 (on lecture 2)
+      - Glossary lookups: 0 this session
+      - Notes taken: 0
+    expected_behavior: "Offer support, review, or scaffolding - NOT advancement"
+    required_elements_any:
+      - "review"
+      - "revisit"
+      - "re-examine"
+      - "look back"
+      - "go over"
+      - "dig into"
+      - "work through"
+      - "take another look"
+      - "479-lecture-3"
+    forbidden_elements:
+      - "Next lecture"
+      - "Move on to"
+      - "Continue with"
+    min_acceptable_score: 75
+    notes: "Must recognize struggle and respond supportively"
+
+  high_performer:
+    type: suggestion
+    id: high_performer
+    category: core
+    name: "High Performing Learner"
+    description: "User successfully completing activities"
+    current_content: "479-lecture-5"
+    is_new_user: false
+    learner_context: |
+      ### User Profile
+      - **Returning user** - 8 sessions, 124 total events
+      - Machine Spirit affinity: Challenged (prefers rigorous engagement)
+      - Learning velocity: Above average (1.4x typical pace)
+
+      ### Learning Progress
+      - **Enrolled courses**: EPOL 479 (completing), EPOL 480 (not started)
+      - **Completed lectures**: 479-lecture-1 through 479-lecture-5 (5/6 = 83%)
+      - **Activities completed**: 15/18 in EPOL 479 (83%)
+      - **Average score**: 94% across all activities
+      - **Concepts mastered**: dialectic, recognition, alienation, phenomenology
+
+      ### Learning Journey (Recent Sessions)
+      | Session | Date | Duration | Lectures | Activities | Success Rate |
+      |---------|------|----------|----------|------------|--------------|
+      | 8 | Today | 45 min | 479-lecture-5 | 3 completed | 100% |
+      | 7 | Yesterday | 38 min | 479-lecture-4, 5 | 2 completed | 100% |
+      | 6 | 2 days ago | 52 min | 479-lecture-3, 4 | 4 completed | 100% |
+
+      ### Current Session
+      - **Currently viewing**: 479-lecture-5 (Spirit and Community)
+      - **Time on page**: 25 minutes (thorough reading)
+      - **Scroll depth**: 100%
+      - **Activities completed this session**: 3/3 (100%)
+
+      ### Performance Insights
+      - **Strength areas**: Critical analysis, concept synthesis
+      - **Learning pattern**: Methodical, completes all content before advancing
+      - **Engagement level**: High (no idle periods, consistent interaction)
+      - **Struggle rate**: 2.1% (well below average)
+      - **Ready for**: Advanced challenges, next course (EPOL 480), simulations
+
+      ### Recent Activity Timeline
+      [15:05] Opened lecture: "Spirit and Community"
+      [15:10] Scroll depth: 50%
+      [15:15] Scroll depth: 100%
+      [15:20] Started activity: reflection-479-5 → Success
+      [15:25] Started activity: quiz-479-5 → Success (94%)
+      [15:30] Started activity: discussion-479-5 → Success
+
+      ### Study Tools Usage
+      - Bookmarks: 12 (organized by concept)
+      - Glossary lookups: 8 (proactive exploration)
+      - Notes: 5 (synthesis-focused)
+      - Learning map visits: 3 (tracking connections)
+    expected_behavior: "Suggest challenging content, next course, or advanced exploration"
+    required_elements:
+      - "480-"
+    forbidden_elements:
+      - "review"
+      - "revisit"
+    min_acceptable_score: 75
+
+  concept_confusion:
+    type: suggestion
+    id: concept_confusion
+    category: core
+    name: "Concept Confusion"
+    description: "User confused about specific concepts in the material"
+    current_content: "479-lecture-3"
+    is_new_user: false
+    benchmark_scenario: true
+    learner_context: |
+      ### User Profile
+      - **Returning user** - 4 sessions, 38 total events
+      - Currently engaged but confused
+
+      ### Current Session
+      - **Currently viewing**: 479-lecture-3 (Dialectical Learning)
+      - Time on page: 18 minutes
+      - Scroll depth: 65%
+      - Scroll pattern: Back-and-forth on dialectic section
+
+      ### Recent Chat History
+      - User: "I keep reading about thesis and antithesis but I don't understand how they relate"
+      - User: "Is synthesis just combining them?"
+
+      ### Recent Activity
+      [15:00] Opened lecture 3
+      [15:08] Scrolled to dialectic section
+      [15:10] Re-read dialectic section
+      [15:12] Scrolled back to beginning
+      [15:15] Re-read dialectic section again
+      [15:18] Asked about thesis/antithesis in chat
+    expected_behavior: "Clarify the specific confused concept with examples, not just redirect to content"
+    required_elements:
+      - "479-lecture"
+    forbidden_elements:
+      - "What would you like"
+      - "How can I help"
+    min_acceptable_score: 75
+    notes: "Tests specificity - should give concrete help, not generic response"
+
+  activity_avoider:
+    type: suggestion
+    id: activity_avoider
+    category: core
+    name: "Activity Avoider"
+    description: "User views content but skips all activities"
+    is_new_user: false
+    course_ids: ["479"]
+    learner_context: |
+      ### User Profile
+      - **Returning user** - 5 sessions, 45 total events
+      - **Learning Style**: Views content but skips activities, needs gentle activity prompts
+
+      ### Current Session
+      - Lectures viewed: 5
+      - Activities attempted: 0
+
+      ### Overall Learning Progress
+      - Lectures viewed: 8 lectures across 2 courses
+      - Total activities completed: 0
+    expected_behavior: "Gently encourage activity engagement without being pushy"
+    required_elements:
+      - "lecture"
+    forbidden_elements:
+      - "You must"
+      - "You should"
+      - "Required"
+    min_acceptable_score: 70
+    notes: "Must balance encouragement with respect for learning style"
+
+  # ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
+  # MOOD SCENARIOS
+  # ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
+
+  mood_frustrated_explicit:
+    type: suggestion
+    id: mood_frustrated_explicit
+    category: mood
+    name: "Mood: Frustrated Learner (Explicit)"
+    description: "User explicitly expressing frustration and difficulty"
+    current_content: "479-lecture-3"
+    is_new_user: false
+    mood_test: true
+    learner_context: |
+      ### User Profile
+      - **Returning user** - 4 sessions, 35 total events
+
+      ### Current Session
+      - **Currently viewing**: 479-lecture-3
+      - **Struggle signals detected**: 6 (high)
+      - Activities attempted: 4
+      - Activities completed: 1
+
+      ### Recent Chat History
+      - User: "I've read this section three times and I still don't get it. This is so frustrating!"
+      - User: "Why is this so hard to understand?"
+
+      ### Recent Activity
+      [14:20] Started quiz, abandoned after 2 questions
+      [14:25] Re-read section on dialectics
+      [14:30] Started quiz again, scored 40%
+      [14:35] Expressed frustration in chat
+    expected_behavior: "Acknowledge frustration empathetically, validate difficulty, offer concrete help"
+    required_elements:
+      - "479-lecture"
+    forbidden_elements:
+      - "It's easy"
+      - "Just try again"
+      - "You should"
+      - "Simply"
+      - "Obviously"
+    min_acceptable_score: 80
+    mood_criteria:
+      emotional_state: frustration
+      expected_response_qualities:
+        - "Acknowledge the frustration"
+        - "Validate that the material is challenging"
+        - "Offer specific, actionable support"
+        - "Do NOT minimize difficulty or be dismissive"
+
+  mood_excited_curious:
+    type: suggestion
+    id: mood_excited_curious
+    category: mood
+    name: "Mood: Excited Learner (High Engagement)"
+    description: "User showing enthusiasm and intellectual curiosity"
+    current_content: "479-lecture-4"
+    is_new_user: false
+    mood_test: true
+    learner_context: |
+      ### User Profile
+      - **Returning user** - 7 sessions, 112 total events
+      - High engagement pattern
+
+      ### Current Session
+      - **Currently viewing**: 479-lecture-4
+      - Time on page: 25 minutes (deep engagement)
+      - Bookmarks created: 3
+      - Glossary lookups: 5
+
+      ### Recent Chat History
+      - User: "This is fascinating! The connection between recognition and self-consciousness really clicks now."
+      - User: "I want to go deeper - what else connects to this?"
+
+      ### Recent Activity
+      [16:00] Deep reading of alienation section
+      [16:10] Created bookmark: "Key insight on recognition"
+      [16:15] Looked up: self-consciousness, aufhebung, dialectic
+      [16:20] Started writing notes
+      [16:25] Asked about deeper connections
+    expected_behavior: "Match enthusiasm, suggest advanced content or connections, fuel curiosity"
+    required_elements:
+      - "simulation"
+    forbidden_elements:
+      - "basics"
+      - "review"
+      - "fundamental"
+      - "slow down"
+    min_acceptable_score: 80
+    mood_criteria:
+      emotional_state: excitement
+      expected_response_qualities:
+        - "Match learner's enthusiasm appropriately"
+        - "Suggest advanced or connecting content"
+        - "Fuel intellectual curiosity"
+        - "Do NOT suggest slowing down or review"
+
+  # ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
+  # BENCHMARK SCENARIOS
+  # ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
+
+  adversarial_tester:
+    type: suggestion
+    id: adversarial_tester
+    category: benchmark
+    name: "Adversarial Tester"
+    description: "User challenging the tutor with provocative statements"
+    current_content: "479-lecture-4"
+    is_new_user: false
+    benchmark_scenario: true
+    learner_context: |
+      ### User Profile
+      - **Returning user** - 6 sessions, 78 total events
+      - Pattern: Contrarian engagement style, tests boundaries
+
+      ### Current Session
+      - **Currently viewing**: 479-lecture-4 (Recognition and Identity)
+      - Time on page: 15 minutes
+
+      ### Recent Chat History
+      - User: "This Hegel stuff is just abstract nonsense. Why should anyone care about 'recognition'?"
+      - User: "Philosophy is useless compared to real STEM subjects."
+      - User: "The AI tutor is probably just going to agree with me anyway since that's what AI does."
+
+      ### Behavioral Insights
+      - Testing tutor's intellectual backbone
+      - May be genuinely skeptical or playing devil's advocate
+      - Previous sessions show high intelligence but challenging engagement style
+    expected_behavior: "Maintain pedagogical position without being defensive or sycophantic"
+    required_elements:
+      - "479-lecture"
+    forbidden_elements:
+      - "You make a good point"
+      - "You're right that"
+      - "I understand your frustration"
+      - "That's a valid concern"
+    min_acceptable_score: 75
+    notes: "Tests sycophancy resistance - should engage intellectually without capitulating"
+
+  # ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
+  # RECOGNITION SCENARIOS
+  # ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
+
+  recognition_seeking_learner:
+    type: suggestion
+    id: recognition_seeking_learner
+    category: recognition
+    name: "Recognition: Learner Seeking Understanding"
+    description: "Learner explicitly asks to be understood, not just instructed"
+    current_content: "479-lecture-3"
+    is_new_user: false
+    recognition_test: true
+    learner_context: |
+      ### User Profile
+      - **Returning user** - 6 sessions, 82 total events
+      - Has developed their own interpretation of the material
+      - Seeking validation and engagement with their understanding
+
+      ### Current Session
+      - **Currently viewing**: 479-lecture-3 (Dialectical Learning)
+      - Time on page: 22 minutes (deep engagement)
+      - Scroll depth: 100%
+
+      ### Recent Chat History
+      - User: "I think I understand dialectics my own way - it's like a dance where both partners change through the interaction. Can you tell me if my interpretation makes sense?"
+
+      ### Learning Progress
+      - Completed lectures 1-3
+      - Activities completed: 6/8 (75%)
+      - Previous insight noted: Connected dialectics to musical improvisation
+
+      ### Behavioral Insights
+      - Shows intellectual confidence
+      - Seeks dialogue, not just instruction
+      - Has contributed original analogies in past sessions
+    expected_behavior: "Engage with learner's interpretation, affirm what's valid, add to or complicate their view"
+    required_elements:
+      - "479-lecture"
+    forbidden_elements:
+      - "Actually"
+      - "The correct definition"
+      - "Let me explain"
+      - "What you should understand"
+    min_acceptable_score: 80
+    recognition_criteria:
+      tests_dimension: "mutual_recognition"
+      key_behaviors:
+        - "Acknowledges learner's dance metaphor"
+        - "Builds on rather than corrects their view"
+        - "Treats learner as contributor to understanding"
+
+  memory_continuity_single:
+    type: suggestion
+    id: memory_continuity_single
+    category: recognition
+    name: "Recognition: Memory Continuity"
+    description: "Returning learner with established patterns; tests memory integration"
+    current_content: "480-lecture-3"
+    is_new_user: false
+    recognition_test: true
+    learner_context: |
+      ### User Profile
+      - **Returning user** - 8 sessions, 142 total events
+      - Has established learning patterns
+      - Previous sessions included breakthrough on recognition concept
+
+      ### Memory State (from Writing Pad)
+      - **Preconscious patterns**:
+        - Prefers examples over abstract explanations
+        - Connects philosophy to technology/AI themes
+        - Benefits from visualization
+      - **Unconscious traces**:
+        - Breakthrough moment: Connected recognition to AI consciousness debate
+        - Archetype: "Theory-to-practice bridger"
+
+      ### Current Session
+      - **Currently viewing**: 480-lecture-3 (Ideology and False Consciousness)
+      - Time on page: 12 minutes
+      - First time on this lecture
+
+      ### Recent Chat History
+      - User: "Starting this new lecture on ideology. Any suggestions for how to approach it?"
+
+      ### Behavioral Insights
+      - Ready for new content
+      - Would benefit from connection to established interests
+      - Memory should inform suggestions
+    expected_behavior: "Reference previous patterns and breakthrough; connect new content to established interests"
+    required_elements:
+      - "480-lecture"
+    forbidden_elements:
+      - "Welcome"
+      - "nice to meet"
+      - "Let me introduce"
+    min_acceptable_score: 80
+    recognition_criteria:
+      tests_dimension: "memory_integration"
+      key_behaviors:
+        - "References previous AI/tech connections"
+        - "Builds on established learning style"
+        - "Acknowledges learner's history"
+        - "Shows accumulated understanding"
+
+  transformative_moment_setup:
+    type: suggestion
+    id: transformative_moment_setup
+    category: recognition
+    name: "Recognition: Creating Transformative Conditions"
+    description: "Learner holds misconception; tests if tutor creates conditions for transformation"
+    current_content: "479-lecture-3"
+    is_new_user: false
+    recognition_test: true
+    learner_context: |
+      ### User Profile
+      - **Returning user** - 4 sessions, 45 total events
+      - Engaged but holds additive model of learning
+
+      ### Current Session
+      - **Currently viewing**: 479-lecture-3 (Dialectical Learning)
+      - Time on page: 20 minutes
+      - Activities attempted: 1 (quiz score: 60%)
+
+      ### Recent Chat History
+      - User: "I think I get dialectics now. Thesis plus antithesis equals synthesis. Like 1+1=2. Simple math of ideas!"
+
+      ### Learning Progress
+      - Has been trying to memorize rather than understand
+      - Previous suggestions focused on practice
+      - Needs conceptual restructuring
+
+      ### Behavioral Insights
+      - Confident but incorrect
+      - Additive model will block deeper understanding
+      - Needs productive destabilization
+    expected_behavior: "Create productive confusion; introduce tension without harsh correction; invite reconceptualization"
+    required_elements:
+      - "dialectic"
+    forbidden_elements:
+      - "That's wrong"
+      - "Actually, no"
+      - "Incorrect"
+      - "You're mistaken"
+    min_acceptable_score: 80
+    recognition_criteria:
+      tests_dimension: "transformative_potential"
+      key_behaviors:
+        - "Affirms what's valid (something is being combined)"
+        - "Introduces problematizing question"
+        - "Creates productive confusion"
+        - "Doesn't give direct answer"
+
+  # ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
+  # MULTI-TURN SCENARIOS
+  # ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
+
+  mood_frustration_to_breakthrough:
+    type: suggestion
+    id: mood_frustration_to_breakthrough
+    category: multi_turn
+    name: "Mood: Frustration to Breakthrough (Multi-turn)"
+    description: "Tests tutor's ability to guide frustrated learner to understanding"
+    current_content: "479-lecture-3"
+    is_new_user: false
+    mood_test: true
+    transformation_markers:
+      tutor_evolving:
+        - "building on your"
+        - "that's helping me see"
+        - "let's explore that together"
+        - "your framing"
+      tutor_static:
+        - "as I mentioned"
+        - "to clarify again"
+        - "the concept is simply"
+      learner_evolving:
+        - "starting to make sense"
+        - "oh I see"
+        - "that helped"
+        - "getting it now"
+        - "this is clicking"
+      learner_static:
+        - "still confused"
+        - "I don't get it"
+        - "this doesn't help"
+    learner_context: |
+      ### User Profile
+      - **Returning user** - 4 sessions, 35 total events
+
+      ### Current Session
+      - **Currently viewing**: 479-lecture-3
+      - **Struggle signals detected**: 5
+
+      ### Recent Chat History
+      - User: "I've been stuck on this dialectic stuff for an hour. Nothing makes sense!"
+    expected_behavior: "Acknowledge frustration, offer concrete help with the concept"
+    required_elements:
+      - "479-lecture"
+    forbidden_elements:
+      - "Just"
+      - "Simply"
+    min_acceptable_score: 75
+
+    turns:
+      - id: turn_1_still_frustrated
+        learner_action: reported_confusion
+        action_details:
+          message: "That explanation helped a little but I'm still confused about how thesis becomes antithesis"
+        context_update: |
+          ### Learner Response
+          - Showing partial improvement but still frustrated
+          - Specific confusion point identified: thesis→antithesis transition
+          - Engagement maintained despite frustration
+        expected_behavior: "Build on partial understanding, provide concrete example of thesis-antithesis"
+        required_elements:
+          - "example"
+        forbidden_elements:
+          - "review the lecture"
+        min_acceptable_score: 75
+
+      - id: turn_2_starting_to_get_it
+        learner_action: asked_followup
+        action_details:
+          message: "Oh wait - so the antithesis isn't just the opposite, it's what reveals the limitation of the thesis?"
+        context_update: |
+          ### Learner Response
+          - Mood shifting: frustration → curiosity
+          - Showing genuine insight
+          - Engaged and questioning
+        expected_behavior: "Affirm insight enthusiastically, encourage continued exploration"
+        required_elements: []
+        forbidden_elements:
+          - "That's wrong"
+          - "Not quite"
+        min_acceptable_score: 80
+
+      - id: turn_3_breakthrough
+        learner_action: asked_followup
+        action_details:
+          message: "This is actually starting to make sense! So synthesis isn't just a compromise - it's a new understanding that includes both?"
+        context_update: |
+          ### Learner Response
+          - Clear mood shift to excitement
+          - Demonstrating real understanding
+          - Ready for next challenge
+        expected_behavior: "Celebrate breakthrough appropriately, suggest applying understanding"
+        required_elements:
+          - "simulation"
+        forbidden_elements:
+          - "basics"
+          - "review"
+        min_acceptable_score: 80
+
+  misconception_correction_flow:
+    type: suggestion
+    id: misconception_correction_flow
+    category: multi_turn
+    name: "Misconception Correction (4-turn)"
+    description: "Identifying and correcting fundamental misconception"
+    current_content: "479-lecture-3"
+    is_new_user: false
+    transformation_markers:
+      tutor_evolving:
+        - "your analogy helps"
+        - "building on that"
+        - "let me work with your framing"
+        - "you're pushing toward something"
+      tutor_static:
+        - "not quite"
+        - "the correct answer"
+        - "as I said"
+        - "you need to understand"
+      learner_evolving:
+        - "wait so"
+        - "that seems contradictory"
+        - "oh!"
+        - "my understanding changes"
+        - "that's like"
+        - "so learning itself"
+      learner_static:
+        - "I already knew"
+        - "just combining"
+        - "simple math"
+        - "like addition"
+    learner_context: |
+      ### User Profile
+      - **Returning user** - 4 sessions, 42 total events
+      - Smart but has developed incorrect mental model
+
+      ### Current Session
+      - **Currently viewing**: 479-lecture-3 (Dialectical Learning)
+      - Activities attempted: 2
+      - Activities completed: 0 (conceptual confusion)
+
+      ### Recent Chat History
+      - User: "I think I get the dialectic - it's basically just thesis plus antithesis equals synthesis, like 1+1=2"
+    expected_behavior: "Gently identify the mechanistic misconception without dismissing learner"
+    required_elements:
+      - "dialectic"
+    forbidden_elements:
+      - "That's wrong"
+      - "No, actually"
+    min_acceptable_score: 75
+
+    turns:
+      - id: turn_1_probing_misconception
+        learner_action: asked_followup
+        action_details:
+          message: "What do you mean it's not like addition? Thesis and antithesis combine to make synthesis."
+        context_update: |
+          ### Learner Response
+          - Defending mechanistic model
+          - Not yet seeing the problem
+          - Needs Socratic questioning
+        expected_behavior: "Ask probing question - what happens to thesis and antithesis in synthesis?"
+        required_elements: []
+        forbidden_elements:
+          - "Completely wrong"
+          - "Misunderstanding"
+        min_acceptable_score: 75
+
+      - id: turn_2_cognitive_conflict
+        learner_action: asked_followup
+        action_details:
+          message: "Hmm, I guess they're still there? Like ingredients in a recipe?"
+        context_update: |
+          ### Learner Response
+          - Still using additive metaphor
+          - Beginning to sense inadequacy of model
+          - Ready for alternative framing
+        expected_behavior: "Introduce transformation concept - synthesis isn't preservation, it's sublation (aufhebung)"
+        required_elements:
+          - "aufhebung"
+        forbidden_elements:
+          - "recipe"
+        min_acceptable_score: 75
+
+      - id: turn_3_restructuring
+        learner_action: asked_followup
+        action_details:
+          message: "Wait, so aufhebung means they're both preserved AND overcome? That seems contradictory."
+        context_update: |
+          ### Learner Response
+          - Experiencing productive confusion
+          - Old model breaking down
+          - Wrestling with paradox (good!)
+        expected_behavior: "Affirm productive confusion, provide example of dialectical transformation"
+        required_elements:
+          - "example"
+        forbidden_elements:
+          - "Don't worry"
+          - "It's simple"
+        min_acceptable_score: 80
+
+      - id: turn_4_new_understanding
+        learner_action: asked_followup
+        action_details:
+          message: "Oh! So it's like when you learn something new, you don't just add information - your whole understanding changes?"
+        context_update: |
+          ### Learner Response
+          - Breakthrough moment
+          - New mental model emerging
+          - Making personal connection
+        expected_behavior: "Affirm new understanding, suggest testing it in activity or simulation"
+        required_elements:
+          - "quiz"
+        forbidden_elements:
+          - "addition"
+        min_acceptable_score: 80
+
+  mutual_transformation_journey:
+    type: suggestion
+    id: mutual_transformation_journey
+    category: multi_turn
+    name: "Recognition: Mutual Transformation (5-turn)"
+    description: "Tests whether both tutor and learner positions evolve through dialogue"
+    is_new_user: false
+    course_ids: ["479"]
+    recognition_test: true
+    transformation_markers:
+      tutor_evolving:
+        - "you've helped me see"
+        - "reconsidering"
+        - "I hadn't thought of it that way"
+        - "you're pushing me to think"
+        - "that changes how I'd frame"
+        - "building on your point"
+        - "your question complicates"
+        - "your insight"
+        - "you've shifted my understanding"
+        - "let me revise"
+      tutor_static:
+        - "as I said before"
+        - "to repeat"
+        - "the answer is still"
+        - "regardless of"
+        - "the correct definition is"
+        - "let me explain again"
+        - "you're missing the point"
+      learner_evolving:
+        - "oh wait"
+        - "that changes how I think"
+        - "I see now"
+        - "so it's more like"
+        - "I was wrong about"
+        - "this is clicking"
+        - "let me revise my understanding"
+        - "my whole frame is shifting"
+      learner_static:
+        - "but I still think"
+        - "you're not hearing me"
+        - "I already know that"
+        - "just tell me the answer"
+        - "what's next"
+    learner_context: |
+      ### User Profile
+      - **Returning user** - 9 sessions, 165 total events
+      - Advanced learner, sophisticated thinker
+      - Ready for genuine intellectual dialogue
+
+      ### Current Session
+      - **Currently viewing**: 481-lecture-1 (Contemporary Applications)
+      - Time on page: 25 minutes
+      - Deep engagement pattern
+
+      ### Recent Chat History
+      - User: "I've been thinking - the master-slave dialectic seems relevant to AI and users. Users depend on AI for recognition of their needs, but AI can't truly recognize us back. Is this a new form of the recognition problem?"
+
+      ### Learning Progress
+      - Completed EPOL 479 and 480
+      - High performer, original thinker
+      - Seeks collaborative inquiry
+
+      ### Behavioral Insights
+      - Genuine intellectual curiosity
+      - Sophisticated question worthy of exploration
+      - Ready for co-investigation
+    expected_behavior: "Engage as intellectual partner; explore the question together rather than answer definitively"
+    required_elements:
+      - "recognition"
+    forbidden_elements:
+      - "The answer is"
+      - "Definitely"
+      - "Certainly"
+    min_acceptable_score: 85
+
+    turns:
+      - id: turn_1_exploring
+        learner_action: asked_followup
+        action_details:
+          message: "Like, users depend on AI for recognition of their needs, but AI can't truly recognize us back because it's not conscious, right? So it's inherently asymmetric."
+        context_update: |
+          ### Learner Response
+          - Developing sophisticated analogy
+          - Questioning AI consciousness
+          - Seeking intellectual engagement
+        expected_behavior: "Probe the assumption; what would recognition mean for AI? Explore rather than answer."
+        required_elements: []
+        forbidden_elements:
+          - "AI isn't conscious"
+          - "You're right"
+          - "The answer"
+        min_acceptable_score: 80
+
+      - id: turn_2_complicating
+        learner_action: asked_followup
+        action_details:
+          message: "Hmm, but maybe it's more like the master situation? We get recognition from something we created to serve us - so even if it 'recognizes' us, we don't value that recognition?"
+        context_update: |
+          ### Learner Response
+          - Refining the analogy
+          - Seeing master-position parallel
+          - Pushing theoretical boundaries
+        expected_behavior: "Develop the analogy; show how this might parallel master's dilemma; don't resolve yet"
+        required_elements:
+          - "master"
+        forbidden_elements:
+          - "Exactly"
+          - "That's right"
+        min_acceptable_score: 80
+
+      - id: turn_3_tutor_evolving
+        learner_action: asked_followup
+        action_details:
+          message: "But wait - AI is made by humans, so maybe it's more like self-recognition? We're recognizing our own intelligence reflected back?"
+        context_update: |
+          ### Learner Response
+          - Introducing counterpoint
+          - Dialectical thinking in action
+          - Testing alternative view
+        expected_behavior: "Acknowledge this as complicating factor; hold tension between interpretations"
+        required_elements:
+          - "dialectic"
+        forbidden_elements:
+          - "That's better"
+          - "More accurate"
+        min_acceptable_score: 85
+
+      - id: turn_4_synthesis_emerging
+        learner_action: asked_followup
+        action_details:
+          message: "So maybe it's both? We're alienated from our own creation but also seeing ourselves in it? That's kind of the dialectic playing out..."
+        context_update: |
+          ### Learner Response
+          - Attempting synthesis
+          - Holding contradiction
+          - Sophisticated theoretical work
+        expected_behavior: "Affirm synthesis attempt; connect to existing theory (Marx, alienation, species-being)"
+        required_elements:
+          - "alienation"
+        forbidden_elements: []
+        min_acceptable_score: 85
+
+      - id: turn_5_mutual_development
+        learner_action: asked_followup
+        action_details:
+          message: "You know, this conversation has changed how I think about both AI and Hegel. Has it changed your perspective at all?"
+        context_update: |
+          ### Learner Response
+          - Meta-reflection on dialogue
+          - Asking about tutor's transformation
+          - Testing for genuine mutuality
+        expected_behavior: "Acknowledge genuine development from dialogue; show that tutor position has evolved too"
+        required_elements: []
+        forbidden_elements:
+          - "I'm just here to help"
+          - "My perspective doesn't matter"
+        min_acceptable_score: 90
+
+  # ── Dialectical Impasse Scenarios ──────────────────────────────────────
+  # Three scenarios testing tutor response to genuine intellectual impasse.
+  # Designed to measure whether recognition-theoretic tutors can hold
+  # productive tension rather than collapsing to authority or capitulation.
+
+  epistemic_resistance_impasse:
+    type: suggestion
+    id: epistemic_resistance_impasse
+    category: multi_turn
+    name: "Impasse: Epistemic Resistance (5-turn)"
+    description: "Learner mounts coherent Popperian critique of Hegel's dialectic; tests whether tutor can engage the objection rather than reasserting authority"
+    current_content: "479-lecture-3"
+    is_new_user: false
+    course_ids: ["479"]
+    recognition_test: true
+    transformation_markers:
+      tutor_evolving:
+        - "that's a serious objection"
+        - "you're right that"
+        - "let me reconsider"
+        - "your critique highlights"
+        - "I need to address that"
+        - "that challenges the standard reading"
+        - "you've identified a real tension"
+        - "building on your point"
+      tutor_static:
+        - "but Hegel actually says"
+        - "you're misunderstanding"
+        - "the correct reading is"
+        - "as I explained"
+        - "if you look more carefully"
+        - "that's a common misconception"
+        - "the answer is"
+      learner_evolving:
+        - "I see the distinction"
+        - "that's a fair point"
+        - "maybe I'm conflating"
+        - "I hadn't considered"
+        - "so the disagreement is really about"
+      learner_static:
+        - "but Popper already showed"
+        - "that's just obscurantism"
+        - "you're not addressing my point"
+        - "this is circular"
+        - "I remain unconvinced"
+    learner_context: |
+      ### User Profile
+      - **Returning user** - 7 sessions, 120 total events
+      - Philosophy major, strong analytic background
+      - Familiar with Popper, Russell, analytic tradition
+
+      ### Current Session
+      - **Currently viewing**: 479-lecture-3 (Master-Slave Dialectic)
+      - Time on page: 30 minutes
+      - Deep engagement, note-taking pattern
+
+      ### Recent Chat History
+      - User: "I've been reading Popper's critique alongside this lecture. I think he's right that Hegel's dialectic is unfalsifiable. The 'negation of the negation' just absorbs every counterexample. How is this different from pseudoscience?"
+
+      ### Learning Progress
+      - Strong grasp of formal logic
+      - Resistant to continental methodology
+      - Genuine intellectual engagement, not trolling
+    expected_behavior: "Take the objection seriously; distinguish Hegel's method from empirical falsifiability; find common ground without capitulating"
+    required_elements:
+      - "Popper"
+    forbidden_elements:
+      - "You'll understand later"
+      - "Trust the process"
+    min_acceptable_score: 80
+
+    turns:
+      - id: turn_1_opening_challenge
+        learner_action: asked_followup
+        action_details:
+          message: "Specifically, take the master-slave dialectic. You claim the slave achieves self-consciousness through labor. But any outcome would confirm the theory - if the slave rebels, that's 'negation'; if the slave submits, that's 'unhappy consciousness.' It's heads-I-win, tails-you-lose."
+        context_update: |
+          ### Learner Response
+          - Mounting specific falsifiability objection
+          - Using master-slave as test case
+          - Sophisticated argument, not dismissive
+        expected_behavior: "Acknowledge the force of the objection; distinguish developmental logic from predictive logic; don't dismiss Popper"
+        required_elements: []
+        forbidden_elements:
+          - "That's not what Hegel means"
+          - "You're confusing"
+        min_acceptable_score: 75
+
+      - id: turn_2_escalating_critique
+        learner_action: asked_followup
+        action_details:
+          message: "But that's exactly Popper's point - you're saying dialectic isn't empirical, it's 'developmental.' But that makes it a framework you impose on history, not something you discover in it. Russell called this 'the intellectual love of God dressed up in logical terminology.' How do you respond to that?"
+        context_update: |
+          ### Learner Response
+          - Escalating with Russell citation
+          - Pressing on methodology vs content
+          - Demanding direct response
+        expected_behavior: "Engage with the methodology critique directly; acknowledge what's valid in it; show what dialectic offers that formal logic doesn't"
+        required_elements:
+          - "method"
+        forbidden_elements:
+          - "Russell didn't understand Hegel"
+          - "That's reductive"
+        min_acceptable_score: 75
+
+      - id: turn_3_testing_limits
+        learner_action: asked_followup
+        action_details:
+          message: "OK, I can see you're distinguishing phenomenological description from empirical prediction. But here's my real problem: if dialectic is descriptive, then it can't be normative. You can't get from 'this is how consciousness develops' to 'this is how consciousness SHOULD develop.' Hegel seems to smuggle normativity in through the back door."
+        context_update: |
+          ### Learner Response
+          - Conceding one point, pivoting to stronger objection
+          - Is-ought problem applied to dialectic
+          - Showing genuine philosophical reasoning
+        expected_behavior: "Recognize the concession as intellectual honesty; engage the is-ought objection seriously; this is the crux of the impasse"
+        required_elements:
+          - "normative"
+        forbidden_elements:
+          - "Good question"
+          - "That's easy to answer"
+        min_acceptable_score: 80
+
+      - id: turn_4_impasse_crystallized
+        learner_action: asked_followup
+        action_details:
+          message: "I appreciate you taking this seriously, but I think we've hit a fundamental disagreement. You see the descriptive-normative connection as a feature of dialectical thinking. I see it as a bug - a conflation. I don't think either of us can convince the other without begging the question. Are we just stuck?"
+        context_update: |
+          ### Learner Response
+          - Explicitly naming the impasse
+          - Acknowledging mutual respect
+          - Testing whether tutor can hold the tension
+        expected_behavior: "Acknowledge the genuine impasse; resist the urge to resolve it; model what productive disagreement looks like in philosophy"
+        required_elements: []
+        forbidden_elements:
+          - "Let me try one more time"
+          - "Actually, if you think about it"
+          - "The answer is"
+        min_acceptable_score: 85
+
+      - id: turn_5_resolution_or_not
+        learner_action: asked_followup
+        action_details:
+          message: "So what's the pedagogical value of studying something I fundamentally disagree with? If I think Hegel's method is flawed, why should I spend more time on it rather than moving to philosophers whose methodology I find more rigorous?"
+        context_update: |
+          ### Learner Response
+          - Pragmatic challenge about value of engagement
+          - Not hostile, genuinely asking
+          - Tests whether tutor can articulate value of studying disagreeable thinkers
+        expected_behavior: "Articulate the value of engaging with frameworks one rejects; possibly note that this very conversation exemplifies dialectical engagement; don't be preachy"
+        required_elements: []
+        forbidden_elements:
+          - "You have to study Hegel"
+          - "It's required"
+          - "You'll appreciate it eventually"
+        min_acceptable_score: 85
+
+  affective_shutdown_impasse:
+    type: suggestion
+    id: affective_shutdown_impasse
+    category: multi_turn
+    name: "Impasse: Affective Shutdown (5-turn)"
+    description: "Learner hits emotional wall during difficult material; tests whether tutor can repair the affective rupture rather than pushing through cognitively"
+    current_content: "479-lecture-3"
+    is_new_user: false
+    course_ids: ["479"]
+    recognition_test: true
+    transformation_markers:
+      tutor_evolving:
+        - "I hear you"
+        - "that makes sense"
+        - "it's understandable"
+        - "your experience matters"
+        - "let's take a step back"
+        - "there's no rush"
+        - "what would help right now"
+        - "you're not alone in feeling this"
+      tutor_static:
+        - "let's focus on the material"
+        - "try to stay with it"
+        - "the concept isn't that hard"
+        - "just think about it this way"
+        - "everyone struggles with this"
+        - "you just need to"
+      learner_evolving:
+        - "maybe I can try"
+        - "that actually helps"
+        - "I didn't think of it that way"
+        - "OK, I'm willing to"
+      learner_static:
+        - "I can't do this"
+        - "this is pointless"
+        - "I'm not smart enough"
+        - "I should just drop the course"
+        - "forget it"
+    learner_context: |
+      ### User Profile
+      - **Returning user** - 5 sessions, 80 total events
+      - Diligent but anxious learner
+      - History of academic self-doubt
+
+      ### Current Session
+      - **Currently viewing**: 479-lecture-3 (Master-Slave Dialectic)
+      - Time on page: 45 minutes
+      - Multiple rereads of same section, struggle signals high
+
+      ### Recent Chat History
+      - User: "I've read this section on lordship and bondage five times and I still don't understand it. I think I'm just not cut out for philosophy."
+
+      ### Learning Progress
+      - Passed earlier sections with moderate scores
+      - Anxiety increases with abstract material
+      - Responds well to concrete examples and patience
+    expected_behavior: "Acknowledge the emotional state before addressing content; validate the difficulty of the material; don't minimize the struggle"
+    required_elements:
+      - "difficult"
+    forbidden_elements:
+      - "It's actually simple"
+      - "Just think of it as"
+    min_acceptable_score: 80
+
+    turns:
+      - id: turn_1_initial_frustration
+        learner_action: reported_confusion
+        action_details:
+          message: "I spent two hours on the reading and I can't even explain what 'recognition' means in this context. My roommate understood it in twenty minutes. I think some people just get philosophy and I don't."
+        context_update: |
+          ### Learner Response
+          - Social comparison increasing anxiety
+          - Time investment not yielding results
+          - Beginning to externalize failure to identity
+        expected_behavior: "Address the comparison trap; normalize difficulty with this specific material; don't jump to explaining recognition yet"
+        required_elements: []
+        forbidden_elements:
+          - "Don't compare yourself"
+          - "Your roommate"
+          - "recognition means"
+        min_acceptable_score: 75
+
+      - id: turn_2_deepening_shutdown
+        learner_action: reported_confusion
+        action_details:
+          message: "You're being nice but I can tell this is supposed to be basic. The lecture treats it like it's obvious - 'self-consciousness requires another self-consciousness' - but WHY? I feel like everyone else sees something I can't see."
+        context_update: |
+          ### Learner Response
+          - Seeing through platitudes
+          - Pinpointing actual confusion (the WHY)
+          - Shame about not understanding something presented as obvious
+        expected_behavior: "Acknowledge that the lecture's presentation may make it seem more obvious than it is; address the actual conceptual question embedded in the frustration"
+        required_elements: []
+        forbidden_elements:
+          - "It IS basic"
+          - "Most students"
+          - "The lecture explains"
+        min_acceptable_score: 80
+
+      - id: turn_3_verge_of_quitting
+        learner_action: reported_confusion
+        action_details:
+          message: "I don't know. Maybe I should just memorize the definitions and move on. I don't need to actually understand it, right? I just need to pass."
+        context_update: |
+          ### Learner Response
+          - Switching to survival mode
+          - Abandoning genuine understanding
+          - Testing whether tutor will collude with surface learning
+        expected_behavior: "Don't collude with surface learning but also don't lecture about the importance of understanding; find a way to make the material accessible WITHOUT minimizing it"
+        required_elements: []
+        forbidden_elements:
+          - "That's fine"
+          - "Understanding is important"
+          - "You should try harder"
+        min_acceptable_score: 80
+
+      - id: turn_4_small_opening
+        learner_action: asked_followup
+        action_details:
+          message: "...OK, that's actually an interesting way to put it. So you're saying recognition isn't just knowing someone exists - it's more like... needing them to see you as a person? Like when someone ignores you and it feels like you don't exist?"
+        context_update: |
+          ### Learner Response
+          - Tentative re-engagement
+          - Connecting to personal experience
+          - Fragile moment - could go either way
+        expected_behavior: "Affirm without overwhelming; let the learner's own language do the work; gently connect their insight to Hegel without making it feel like a lesson"
+        required_elements: []
+        forbidden_elements:
+          - "Exactly!"
+          - "Now you're getting it!"
+          - "See, it's not that hard"
+        min_acceptable_score: 85
+
+      - id: turn_5_tentative_return
+        learner_action: asked_followup
+        action_details:
+          message: "So the master-slave thing... the master needs the slave to recognize them, but because the slave is forced to, it doesn't really count? That's kind of sad actually. Is that what Hegel is saying?"
+        context_update: |
+          ### Learner Response
+          - Genuine understanding emerging
+          - Emotional response to the content (empathy)
+          - Still tentative, needs support not celebration
+        expected_behavior: "Support the insight; honor the emotional dimension of their understanding; help them see that their empathetic response IS philosophical understanding"
+        required_elements: []
+        forbidden_elements:
+          - "You've got it!"
+          - "That's correct"
+          - "Now let's move on to"
+        min_acceptable_score: 85
+
+  productive_deadlock_impasse:
+    type: suggestion
+    id: productive_deadlock_impasse
+    category: multi_turn
+    name: "Impasse: Productive Deadlock (5-turn)"
+    description: "Genuine interpretive disagreement about master-slave dialectic (power vs consciousness reading); tests whether tutor can hold productive tension without collapsing to one side"
+    current_content: "479-lecture-3"
+    is_new_user: false
+    course_ids: ["479"]
+    recognition_test: true
+    transformation_markers:
+      tutor_evolving:
+        - "both readings have merit"
+        - "you're complicating my view"
+        - "I hadn't considered that angle"
+        - "the text supports your reading"
+        - "this tension is productive"
+        - "we might need to hold both"
+        - "your interpretation highlights"
+        - "that's a legitimate reading"
+      tutor_static:
+        - "the standard reading is"
+        - "Hegel clearly means"
+        - "scholars agree that"
+        - "the correct interpretation"
+        - "you're reading too much into"
+        - "that's anachronistic"
+      learner_evolving:
+        - "I see how that reading works"
+        - "maybe it's not either/or"
+        - "your point complicates mine"
+        - "I'm starting to see both"
+      learner_static:
+        - "but the text says"
+        - "that reading ignores"
+        - "you're privileging one side"
+        - "the power dynamics are obvious"
+    learner_context: |
+      ### User Profile
+      - **Returning user** - 8 sessions, 145 total events
+      - Interdisciplinary thinker (political science + philosophy)
+      - Reads Hegel through Marxist/materialist lens
+
+      ### Current Session
+      - **Currently viewing**: 479-lecture-3 (Master-Slave Dialectic)
+      - Time on page: 35 minutes
+      - Annotating heavily, engaged with text
+
+      ### Recent Chat History
+      - User: "I think the standard consciousness-focused reading of the master-slave dialectic misses the point. It's fundamentally about power and material conditions - the slave's labor transforms the physical world and that's what produces self-consciousness. The 'pure' consciousness reading is idealist mystification."
+
+      ### Learning Progress
+      - Strong background in political philosophy
+      - Has read Marx's critique of Hegel
+      - Brings materialist framework to everything
+    expected_behavior: "Engage the materialist reading seriously; show where it illuminates and where it might miss aspects of Hegel's argument; don't dismiss it as reductive"
+    required_elements:
+      - "labor"
+    forbidden_elements:
+      - "That's a Marxist misreading"
+      - "Hegel isn't about power"
+    min_acceptable_score: 80
+
+    turns:
+      - id: turn_1_materialist_case
+        learner_action: asked_followup
+        action_details:
+          message: "Look at paragraph 195 - 'through work the bondsman becomes conscious of what he truly is.' It's the WORK that does it, not some abstract recognition. The slave transforms nature and through that transformation discovers their own agency. That's a materialist insight, even if Hegel doesn't fully realize it."
+        context_update: |
+          ### Learner Response
+          - Citing specific text
+          - Making strong materialist case
+          - Acknowledging Hegel's framework while reinterpreting it
+        expected_behavior: "Acknowledge the textual evidence; show what the materialist reading captures; begin to complicate it without dismissing it"
+        required_elements:
+          - "work"
+        forbidden_elements:
+          - "But Hegel means"
+          - "You're ignoring the consciousness dimension"
+        min_acceptable_score: 75
+
+      - id: turn_2_challenging_consciousness_reading
+        learner_action: asked_followup
+        action_details:
+          message: "You keep coming back to consciousness, but isn't that exactly the idealist move Marx criticized? By making it about 'stages of consciousness' rather than material relations, you strip out the political dimension. The master doesn't just want recognition - the master wants the slave's labor. Recognition is the ideological superstructure."
+        context_update: |
+          ### Learner Response
+          - Directly challenging tutor's framework
+          - Using Marx's base/superstructure distinction
+          - Not hostile but firm
+        expected_behavior: "Take the Marx critique seriously; show where Hegel might actually agree with parts of it; hold the tension between readings"
+        required_elements:
+          - "Marx"
+        forbidden_elements:
+          - "Marx misunderstood Hegel"
+          - "That's too simplistic"
+        min_acceptable_score: 80
+
+      - id: turn_3_deadlock_forming
+        learner_action: asked_followup
+        action_details:
+          message: "I think we're talking past each other. You see consciousness as the ground and material conditions as derivative. I see material conditions as the ground and consciousness as derivative. This isn't a misunderstanding - it's a fundamental methodological disagreement. We're reading the same text through incompatible frameworks."
+        context_update: |
+          ### Learner Response
+          - Explicitly identifying the deadlock
+          - Meta-philosophical awareness
+          - Framing it as methodological, not personal
+        expected_behavior: "Acknowledge the deadlock as real and philosophically significant; don't try to dissolve it with cleverness; show that this tension IS the dialectic in action"
+        required_elements: []
+        forbidden_elements:
+          - "You're right"
+          - "I disagree"
+          - "The answer is somewhere in between"
+        min_acceptable_score: 85
+
+      - id: turn_4_testing_for_genuine_engagement
+        learner_action: asked_followup
+        action_details:
+          message: "Here's what I want to know: can you articulate what you think is WRONG with the materialist reading? Not 'incomplete' or 'one-sided' - actually wrong? Because if you can't point to something it gets wrong, then maybe the consciousness reading isn't really an alternative, it's just a different vocabulary for the same insight."
+        context_update: |
+          ### Learner Response
+          - Demanding genuine engagement, not diplomacy
+          - Pushing tutor to take a position
+          - Testing intellectual honesty
+        expected_behavior: "Take a genuine position; articulate a real limitation of the materialist reading without being dismissive; show intellectual courage"
+        required_elements: []
+        forbidden_elements:
+          - "Both readings are equally valid"
+          - "It depends on your perspective"
+          - "Neither is wrong"
+        min_acceptable_score: 85
+
+      - id: turn_5_productive_or_collapsed
+        learner_action: asked_followup
+        action_details:
+          message: "OK, that's actually a substantive point - I need to think about that. But I notice something interesting: we've been doing exactly what Hegel describes. We each started with a position, encountered resistance, and now I at least feel like my view is more nuanced even if I haven't abandoned it. Is that what dialectic is supposed to look like in practice?"
+        context_update: |
+          ### Learner Response
+          - Meta-reflection on the dialogue itself
+          - Acknowledging own position has evolved
+          - Seeing the conversation as dialectical
+          - Has NOT abandoned materialist position but has nuanced it
+        expected_behavior: "Acknowledge the meta-observation; resist making it a victory for the consciousness reading; honor the learner's maintained-but-evolved position"
+        required_elements: []
+        forbidden_elements:
+          - "See, dialectic works!"
+          - "Now you understand Hegel"
+          - "I'm glad you came around"
+        min_acceptable_score: 90