Unexpected non-whitespace character after JSON at position 3518
5/11/2026, 11:59:10 AM
No
22
6.RP.A
myra_failed
Unexpected non-whitespace character after JSON at position 2804
5/11/2026, 11:52:08 AM
No
21
6.RP.A
myra_failed
Unterminated string in JSON at position 7634
5/11/2026, 11:51:21 AM
No
20
6.RP.A
myra_failed
Unexpected non-whitespace character after JSON at position 5039
5/11/2026, 11:35:42 AM
No
19
6.RP.A
myra_failed
Dorsy response missing required fields for item G6RP-020
5/11/2026, 11:33:09 AM
No
18
6.RP.A
myra_failed
Unexpected non-whitespace character after JSON at position 4290
5/11/2026, 11:32:07 AM
No
17
6.RP.A
double_qc_fail
Two distractor rationale issues require correction before this item can be approved:
1. OPTION D (270 miles) — CRITICAL: The rationale currently offers two competing error paths, one of which (155 × 1.6 ≈ 248) does not produce 270 and should be removed entirely. Revise the rationale to reflect one clean, single misconception that produces exactly 270. The most defensible path is the additive strategy: student correctly finds the unit rate (30 mpg) but adds only 3 extra gallons (8 − 5 = 3) and then erroneously adds 3 × 30 = 90 to 150, yielding 150 + 90 = 240 — but that also yields 240 (the correct answer), so this path does not work either. Because no single, common Grade 6 misconception cleanly and uniquely produces 270, consider replacing 270 with a distractor that has a cleaner error derivation (e.g., 185 miles from an additive error: 150 + (8 − 5) × (150/30) = 150 + 3 × 5 = 165, or another value tied to a documented misconception). If 270 is retained, the rationale must be rewritten to identify one precise, reproducible student error that yields exactly 270.
2. OPTION A (93.75 miles) — MINOR: Relabel the misconception more precisely. The error is not 'inverting the ratio' in the traditional sense; it is misidentifying the unit rate direction by computing miles-per-gallon as gallons-per-mile equivalent (8 ÷ 150 × 5 does not yield 93.75 either). The correct description of the error producing 93.75 is: student divides 150 ÷ 8 = 18.75 and then multiplies by 5 = 93.75, treating 8 as the denominator instead of the target multiplier. Revise the rationale to state this clearly and remove the 'ratio inversion' language.
5/11/2026, 11:30:34 AM
No
16
6.RP.A
double_qc_fail
Two linked issues must be resolved together:
1. MISSING STUDENT B SUPPLY LABELS IN STEM: The item stem never tells students what supply Student B receives in each row. The answer key assigns 'Erasers' to Row 1 Student B, 'Folders' to Row 2 Student B, and 'Glue Sticks' to Row 3 Student B, but this information does not appear in the item. Fix: Revise the stem or table so that each row explicitly names both supplies being split. For example, Row 1 could read '60 total supplies (Pencils for Student A, Erasers for Student B), ratio 3:2.' Alternatively, restructure the table so Column 1 lists 'Student A's Supply' and 'Student B's Supply' separately for each row, with those labels pre-filled (not drop zones).
2. SUPPLY-NAME TOKENS IN STUDENT B'S SHARE COLUMN: Once Student B's supply labels are established in the stem, the supply-name tokens (Erasers, Folders, Glue Sticks) in the Student B share cells become straightforward matching tasks rather than ratio reasoning, which may reduce the item's construct validity. Consider whether the Student B share cells should accept only numeric tokens (the calculated share quantity) and display the supply label as pre-filled text. This keeps the cognitive demand focused on ratio computation and comparison, which is the target standard.
3. MINOR — TOKEN BANK CLARITY: If supply-name tokens are retained, ensure the token bank visually or textually distinguishes numeric tokens from label tokens to reduce interface confusion during drag-and-drop interaction.
No changes needed to the numeric calculations, DOK level, or ratio reasoning structure — those are correct and well-designed.
5/11/2026, 11:29:42 AM
No
15
6.RP.A
double_qc_fail
Two issues require correction before this item can pass:
1. DOK LEVEL (Critical): Relabel dok_level from 2 to 1, OR redesign the item to genuinely require DOK 2 reasoning. To achieve DOK 2, consider one of the following approaches: (a) provide the three unit rates and ask students to determine which item is the 'best buy' and explain why, requiring comparison and interpretation; (b) give a unit rate and a total quantity and ask students to find total cost, then compare two options; or (c) present a partially completed table with a missing quantity and require students to use the unit rate to find it in context. Simply computing three independent unit rates and matching them is a DOK 1 procedural task.
2. DISTRACTOR D — '$0.19 per ounce' (Critical): Replace with a distractor traceable to a specific, reproducible student error for the Orange Juice calculation. Recommended replacement: '$0.20 per ounce' — produced when a student rounds 16 to 20 (treating it as a friendly benchmark number) before dividing: $4.00 ÷ 20 = $0.20. This is a documented estimation error. Alternatively, '$4.00 per ounce' targets students who invert the division (16 ÷ 4 is not the error — rather computing quantity ÷ price instead of price ÷ quantity), though this may be implausibly large. '$0.20 per ounce' is the strongest replacement.
5/11/2026, 11:26:38 AM
No
14
6.RP.A
myra_failed
Unexpected token 'I', "I need to "... is not valid JSON
5/11/2026, 11:24:45 AM
No
13
6.RP.A
myra_failed
Unexpected token 'I', "I need to "... is not valid JSON
5/11/2026, 11:23:49 AM
No
12
6.RP.A
double_qc_fail
Three issues require revision before this item can pass:
1. DOK LABEL (dok_accuracy): Change dok_level from 4 to 3. The item requires critiquing and sorting reasoning about a single scenario, which is DOK 3 (strategic thinking / critique arguments). DOK 4 requires extended real-world investigation or multi-source synthesis not present here. Update both the item JSON and metadata fields.
2. TOKEN5 REWRITE (distractor_quality + answer_correctness): Token5 currently reads 'Store B is the best deal because $4.60 is a lower total price than $3.75' — $4.60 is NOT lower than $3.75, making this card self-evidently false for the wrong reason. Rewrite token5 to express the misconception accurately. Suggested revision: 'Store A is the better deal because $3.75 is a lower total price than $4.60, so it costs less overall.' This cleanly captures the target misconception (ignoring quantity when comparing totals) without introducing a false arithmetic claim. Also verify token5 and token6 are sufficiently distinct — as revised, token5 should emphasize the conclusion ('Store A wins') while token6 emphasizes the dismissal of unit price as a concept; add a phrase to token5 such as 'the quantity difference does not matter' to sharpen the distinction.
3. TOKEN4 AMBIGUITY (answer_correctness + distractor_quality): Token4 introduces a hypothetical proration scenario ('if a buyer needs exactly 15 oz') not grounded in the problem context. This framing is ambiguous — students could reasonably argue this is flawed reasoning because Store B does not sell 15 oz packages. Either (a) remove token4 and replace with a cleaner 'Supports the Claim' card that extends unit-rate reasoning without introducing a counterfactual purchase scenario, or (b) rewrite token4 to stay grounded in the given data, e.g., 'Dividing both prices by their respective ounce counts gives a common basis for comparison; this is valid because unit price normalizes different package sizes to the same unit.' Confirm the answer key reflects whichever revision is made.
5/11/2026, 11:22:29 AM
No
11
6.RP.A
double_qc_fail
DISTRACTOR QUALITY — Option D price conflict: The item stem lists Option D as '3 notebooks for $5.00' but the rationale computes it as '$3.00 ÷ 3 = $1.67 per notebook,' referencing a $3.00 price. These are inconsistent. Choose one of the following fixes: (1) Change Option D in the item stem to '3 notebooks for $3.00' if the intent is to illustrate the misconception of subtracting exactly 1 notebook and $3.00 from the original deal — but note this would make Option D's price implausibly low ($1.00/notebook) and not reflective of a realistic student error near $1.50; OR (2) Keep Option D as '3 notebooks for $5.00,' update the rationale computation to '$5.00 ÷ 3 ≈ $1.67 per notebook,' and revise the misconception description to accurately explain why a student might incorrectly choose this option (e.g., student subtracts 1 notebook and $1.00 from the original deal: 4−1=3, $6−$1=$5). Option 2 is recommended as it preserves a more plausible and pedagogically sound distractor.
5/11/2026, 11:19:29 AM
No
10
6.RP.A.1
double_qc_fail
Two items require correction before this item can pass review:
1. ANSWER KEY / STEM MISMATCH IN PART C: The stem currently states a '150-gallon weekly budget.' Under that threshold, all three expanded plot values (18.75, 37.5, and 60 gal/week) are within budget, making the Part C sort trivial and token10's placement in 'Exceeds budget' incorrect. Myra must choose one of two fixes: (a) Change the stem's budget threshold from 150 gallons to 50 gallons per plot per week, so that token8 (18.75) and token9 (37.5) fall within budget and token10 (60) exceeds it — then update the drop zone label accordingly; OR (b) Redesign the Part C water values so that at least one expanded plot genuinely exceeds 150 gal/week under the original threshold. Option (a) is preferred as it requires the least reconstruction.
2. TOKEN6 TEXT / ANSWER KEY CONFLICT IN PART B: The options list defines token6 as 'Plot C has a lower seed cost per packet than Plot A.' This statement is NOT SUPPORTED by the data ($3.00 is not lower than $2.50). However, the answer key places token6 in 'SUPPORTED by the data.' Myra must update the text of token6 in the options list to read 'Plot C has a higher seed cost per packet than Plot A' ($3.00 > $2.50 → SUPPORTED), which aligns with the rationale's stated final intent. After this fix, Part B will have exactly one SUPPORTED token (token6) and three NOT SUPPORTED tokens (token4, token5, token7), eliminating the empty-drop-zone problem and ensuring the item is not a trick question.
5/11/2026, 10:33:46 AM
No
9
6.RP.A.1
myra_failed
Unexpected non-whitespace character after JSON at position 2751
5/11/2026, 10:31:37 AM
No
8
6.RP.A.1
double_qc_fail
Two issues require revision before this item can be approved:
1. DOK LEVEL (Critical): Downgrade the DOK label from 2 to 1. The item requires a single, direct procedural application of a unit rate with no interpretation, multi-step reasoning across concepts, or analysis. If a DOK 2 item is required for this standard, revise the stem to demand higher cognitive engagement — for example, present a table of two different cars' fuel data and ask the student to determine which car travels farther on 8 gallons, requiring comparison and interpretation across representations.
2. DISTRACTOR A — Replace 11 gallons (Moderate): The misconception rationale for Distractor A is contradictory and does not describe a single coherent student error. Remove 11 gallons and replace it with a value derived from a clean, realistic misconception. Suggested replacement: '10 gallons' — produced when a student applies additive reasoning only to the gas quantity (doubles 5 to get 10 because 390 is 'roughly double' 150, ignoring the exact multiplicative scalar), or '7 gallons' — produced when a student subtracts the original quantities (390 − 150 = 240 extra miles, then 240 ÷ 150 × 5 ≈ 8, misapplied). Select whichever misconception Myra can document cleanly, and write a single-path, unambiguous rationale for it.
5/11/2026, 10:30:44 AM
No
7
6.RP.A.1
double_qc_fail
DOK RECLASSIFICATION REQUIRED: This item tests straightforward identification of a correct ratio statement and operates at DOK 1 (single-step verification of counts), not DOK 2. To retain a DOK 2 designation, Myra must redesign the item so that it requires interpretation or connection of ideas. Options include: (1) presenting a described ratio and asking the student to explain what it means or identify an equivalent scenario, (2) providing an incomplete ratio relationship and requiring the student to determine a missing value using ratio reasoning, or (3) presenting two ratio claims about the same garden and asking which is valid and why. Alternatively, reclassify the item as DOK 1 if the current format is intentional.
5/11/2026, 10:27:22 AM
No
6
6.RP.A
larry_failed
Larry DOK distribution mismatch — DOK2: got 14, expected 12; DOK4: got 4, expected 6
5/11/2026, 10:07:27 AM
No
5
6.RP.A
larry_failed
Larry DOK distribution mismatch — DOK2: got 14, expected 12; DOK4: got 4, expected 6