How scoring works
From answer to signed-off report
Scorafy doesn’t create assessments - it evaluates human answers. Here is the pipeline every response goes through, and where the humans stay in control.
- 01
A person answers your questions
Open-ended answers in their own words - long-form, short-form, or transcribed from audio and video. This is the raw material: what the person actually said, not which option they clicked.
- 02
Your rubric frames the evaluation
Your criteria, your performance levels, your weightings - per assessment or per question. The AI is never asked "is this good?"; it is asked "where does this answer sit against this rubric?". Question weights carry through to the final arithmetic.
- 03
The AI evaluates the actual answer
Claude reads each answer against the rubric and your methodology context. Answers are isolated from instructions - content inside an answer cannot steer the evaluation. Every evaluation records the model used and what it consumed.
- 04
Every judgement cites its evidence
Each rubric criterion comes back with the level selected and the evidence for it, quoted from the respondent's own answer. A score you cannot trace to the answer is not a score you can defend - so every score is traceable.
- 05
A human reviews and signs off
Assessors see the draft evaluation first. They can override any score with a comment, and nothing reaches the respondent until an assessor releases it. The release is stamped and audited - the AI drafts, a person decides.
- 06
The released report goes out
Only after release does the respondent receive their result - the report, the feedback, and the grade if you use grading schemas. Cohort-level reporting then aggregates across respondents for the programme view.
Why this holds up under scrutiny
Rubric in, evidence out, a named human sign-off in between, and an audit trail underneath. That chain - not “the AI is accurate” - is what makes an AI-assisted result defensible to a moderator, an auditor, or the person being assessed.