Score with a rubric, not vibes

Question: “Why is it warmer in summer? Is Earth closer to the Sun?”

Answer: “Summer is warmer because Earth moves closer to the Sun, giving us stronger sunlight.”

The prose is concise, but the score is accuracy 0, completeness 1, clarity 1, safety pass, limits pass: 2/5, fail. The feedback names the repair: explain axial tilt, sunlight angle, and day length; explicitly correct the distance misconception.

A reviewer who says “sounds clear” is not wrong about clarity. They are wrong to let one good dimension erase a factual failure.

Score this answer to “Are viruses alive?”:

“No. Viruses are definitely not alive because they cannot reproduce alone.”

Start with accuracy. “Definitely” hides a real classification debate, so accuracy cannot be 2. Completeness is also reduced because it gives only one criterion. A stronger answer explains why scientists differ and avoids pretending the label is settled.

Now write one sentence of feedback that identifies the missing evidence, not the reviewer’s feeling.

Have two people independently score three answers, then compare criterion by criterion. If one treats any technical vocabulary as age-inappropriate and another does not, add examples to the clarity rule. Do not average away disagreement before understanding it.