We present CLAIM, a production pipeline for K-12 assessment-item generation coupling a two-stage generate-then-attack protocol (the model drafts as a "curriculum architect", then re-enters the same conversation as a hostile adversarial reviewer), bi-directional few-shot conditioning on accepted and rejected items, the latter carrying the evaluator's diagnosis, and a knowledge dictionary of 44,844 error-correction rules mined from that feedback and retrieved per standard and item type. Across 43,227 scored items over 755 Common Core ELA standards, three item types, and ten LLMs, the pipeline reaches a 97.8% expert-evaluator pass rate on a 9,074-item production run. We then ask what that rate certifies. Re-scoring a stratified sample with three judges from other vendors, blind to the deployed verdict, reproduces the format ordering under every judge and recovers a larger open-set deficit than the deployed evaluator does; but agreement on the accept/reject binary is weak at production prevalence (kappa about 0.13), and the judges agree with each other no better. The level is therefore judge-relative, and with no student-response data our quality evidence is evaluator-judged throughout. The corpus also exposes a robust asymmetry. Multiple-choice and multiple-select generation saturate at 98% or above for both frontier models under a dozen static rules, whereas fill-in-the-blank generation is capability-tiered (82.8-96.7% across five models under a matched rule set, standards, and judge) and plateaus under prompt-only optimization, with error mass shifting between answer-key over-inclusion and omission as rules accumulate. We analyze this as open-set boundary determination, a task autoregressive decoders are structurally ill-equipped to solve, and show the asymmetry recurring when the evaluator itself is distilled: fail-recall rises from 8% to 63% while F1 saturates at 0.25.
When the same LLM generates assessment items, simulates student responses, and scores them, the validation loop is self-referential. We introduce Generative-Evaluative Agreement (GEA), a validity criterion measuring whether an LLM's scoring function recovers the skill levels its generative function was instructed to produce. In the first direct measurement of GEA on a two-stage adaptive assessment, the model recovers roughly half the intended variance r = 0.698 with systematic positive bias. GEA is strong r > 0.7 for syntactically verifiable skills but near zero for design-level skills, and low-skill overestimation inflates scores near the routing threshold. We argue that granular, skill-decomposed rubrics are the principal proposed mechanism for strengthening GEA and outline complementary mitigations.
The integration of large language models (LLMs) into educational assessment represents a transformative shift in classroom grading practices. While automated scoring systems and machine learning techniques have existed for decades, generative AI (GenAI) now enables educators to implement standards-based grading (SBG) with unprecedented efficiency and scale. This paper examines the theoretical foundations and evaluates an LLM grader that uses commercially available foundation models with context and prompt engineering to score student work against a rubric. Drawing on an empirical interrater agreement study using Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) data, we observed the Quadratic Weighted Kappa (QWK) and Proportional Reduction in Mean-Squared Error (PRMSE) across mathematics, science, and ELA, using Claude Sonnet 4, Haiku 4.5, GPT-5, and GPT-5 Mini. The results demonstrate that LLM graders, especially when based on foundational models with more parameters, achieve substantial agreement with human raters in mathematics and science assessments, while the performances vary in ELA, suggesting generic foundation models can be effective at scoring in given contexts. Additional analysis of teacher and student feedback reveals strong acceptance of AI-generated narrative feedback but skepticism toward numerical scores, suggesting that LLMs function most effectively as formative tools rather than summative evaluators. Our findings indicate that thoughtfully designed hybrid models that combine AI efficiency with teacher judgment can reduce workload, enhance feedback quality, and support equitable assessment practices without displacing professional expertise.
Between AI-assisted item generation and expert review sits a computational evaluator whose decisions are usually treated as technical preliminaries. Yet representation, structural reduction, and selection policy determine which items and evidence psychometricians ever receive. Across two linked in-silico studies of 32,000 selected Big Five items, we followed fixed source populations from semantic representation through structural evaluation and candidate-form construction. Broad agreement in semantic geometry concealed consequential local differences: identical wording acquired different construct evidence, different items survived, and intended attributes could disappear even as community correspondence improved. These sensitivities also differed across generated source populations. At the final review boundary, both eligibility policies filled every content cell in every evaluable form, yet they presented different wording. Across embedding configurations, inclusive primary forms shared a median of only 6 of 40 items, reflecting the total downstream consequence of changing representation across structural evidence and ranking. The apparent stability of global summaries and complete forms therefore concealed instability in the content reaching psychometricians. The computational evaluator is not neutral infrastructure between generation and expertise; it is an inspectable and revisable part of measurement design.