Assessment charter · version 1

Proof needs a precise label.

Codeology separates learning activity from practice, demonstrated work and independent verification. Every strong claim must say what evidence supports it—and what the assessment cannot establish.

Evidence states

Four states that never collapse into one score

01

Learned

The learner consumed or understood instructional material.

Evidence
Lesson activity and formative quiz activity
Ceiling
Learner reported
02

Practised

The learner attempted realistic work and supplied a learner-owned repository with public checks.

Evidence
Learner repository, exact public commit and learner-controlled checks
Ceiling
Repository observed
03

Demonstrated

An immutable artifact passed Codeology's bounded, versioned review against public criteria.

Evidence
Exact commit, scenario and rubric versions, deterministic observations and criterion evidence
Ceiling
Commit-bound reviewed
04

Verified

Codeology independently checked the immutable artifact and a freshly administered follow-up under controlled conditions.

Evidence
Controlled isolated checks, a fresh follow-up and a signed versioned receipt
Ceiling
Controlled follow-up
Open-tool policy

Use the tools engineers actually use

Editors, IDEs, documentation, search, AI coding assistants, chat companions, public tests and local compute are allowed. Codeology assesses the submitted artifact, reproducible facts, criterion-level evidence and any declared follow-up—not whether the learner avoided modern tools.

Independent axes

Artifact, identity and administration stay separate

A stronger execution environment does not automatically prove identity, authorship or higher underlying ability.

Artifact assurance

  1. Learner reported
  2. Repository observed
  3. Commit-bound reviewed
  4. Independently executed
  5. Controlled follow-up

Identity assurance

  • Unverified
  • Account linked
  • Identity checked

Administration

  • Self directed
  • Controlled
  • Supervised
Rubric language

Anchors instead of false precision

Insufficient

Required evidence is absent, contradictory, or blocked by a published hard reject.

Developing

Some relevant evidence exists, but material gaps prevent the criterion from being met consistently.

Competent

The evidence meets the published criterion under the scenario's stated constraints.

Strong

The evidence meets the criterion and handles meaningful complexity, failure modes, or trade-offs beyond the competent anchor.