From handwritten answers to reviewable learning evidence

The initial scope was transcription and answer preparation: read scans, consolidate extracted text, split it into answers and link those answers to questions. A review interface and audit records were already part of that scope.

The implemented answer-review page brings the stored answer together with its question and reference answer. Reviewers can inspect the mapping before relying on later analysis.

The page groups answer attempts by student and question. It displays the saved answer text and retains the source positions recorded during splitting.

Opening the review page does not run a new matching process. It reads the existing mapping, so a reviewer can see what the pipeline actually stored. The question's latest reference answer appears alongside those attempts when one is available.

The page was verified with integration, smoke and browser checks during development. The review surface also renders mathematical expressions.

The later analysis module associates an answer attempt with a learning goal. Its evidence record can include a mastery score, an explanation, a quoted passage from the answer, a possible misconception and a next step.

A teacher override creates a new version of that evidence. It records the actor and time, links to the version it replaces and saves the revised explanation and other fields. The original row remains part of the version history.

Marking evidence as reviewed also creates a version. It preserves the evidence content and links to its sources while recording the review action.

The implementation extends transcription into question-level and learning-goal review. A teacher can inspect the stored answer mapping and revise the evidence associated with it, with a record of that change.

This is an implemented pilot workflow. Development and pilot records demonstrate the answer-review surface and evidence processing; they do not establish a fully accepted end-to-end student-publication workflow.

The workflow connects an extracted answer to an attributed evidence revision. The work preserves what was read, what it was linked to and how the review changed it.