Included with AI Challenge
The Cognificance layer
One thinking-skill vocabulary across the standards and assessments your school uses, with explicit thinking demand and formative evidence from AI-run challenges.
The layer and Cognificance Critical Thinking Profile are included with AI Challenge. Our catalog annotations are Cognificance-authored interpretations, not publisher ratings or endorsements. The Profile is formative only. It is not a psychometrically normed or validated instrument, and supplies no percentile, certified result or predicted test score.
Domains, strands and observable skills
Seven domains organize the skills. Two strands make AI literacy and dispositions explicit. Each of the 24 skills has five grade-band progressions and four observable level indicators. These are instructional descriptions, not age norms or developmental cutoffs. K-2 descriptions do not imply that young children can register for the portal; the account minimum age still applies.
Expand a skill for its full progression and level indicators. Adult progressions use grade 13 and up with an open upper bound; these are grade markers, not learner ages. The same four level names organize formative evidence: Beginning, Developing, Proficient and Mastered.
Inquiry (domain)
questioning
Asking questions that clarify terms, probe assumptions, follow implications and find where a claim stops holding.
| Band | Observable work |
|---|---|
| K-2 | With a familiar example and an adult prompt, ask a question that tests a claim. |
| 3-5 | With two familiar examples, ask a question that tests a claim. |
| 6-8 | With competing sources in a classroom problem, ask a question that tests a claim. |
| 9-12 | Independently in a complex problem, ask a question that tests a claim. |
| adult | Across unfamiliar personal or professional contexts, ask a question that tests a claim. |
| Level | What a teacher can observe |
|---|---|
| Beginning | With substantial prompting, attempts to ask a question that tests a claim. |
| Developing | With occasional prompting, can ask a question that tests a claim. |
| Proficient | Independently, can ask a question that tests a claim. |
| Mastered | Across unfamiliar contexts, consistently able to ask a question that tests a claim. |
Analysis (domain)
assumption-analysis
Surfacing the unstated assumptions a position, premise or model rests on.
| Band | Observable work |
|---|---|
| K-2 | With a familiar example and an adult prompt, name an assumption and test whether it holds. |
| 3-5 | With two familiar examples, name an assumption and test whether it holds. |
| 6-8 | With competing sources in a classroom problem, name an assumption and test whether it holds. |
| 9-12 | Independently in a complex problem, name an assumption and test whether it holds. |
| adult | Across unfamiliar personal or professional contexts, name an assumption and test whether it holds. |
| Level | What a teacher can observe |
|---|---|
| Beginning | With substantial prompting, attempts to name an assumption and test whether it holds. |
| Developing | With occasional prompting, can name an assumption and test whether it holds. |
| Proficient | Independently, can name an assumption and test whether it holds. |
| Mastered | Across unfamiliar contexts, consistently able to name an assumption and test whether it holds. |
evidence-evaluation
Check whether evidence is relevant, credible and sufficient.
| Band | Observable work |
|---|---|
| K-2 | With a familiar example and an adult prompt, check whether evidence is relevant, credible and sufficient. |
| 3-5 | With two familiar examples, check whether evidence is relevant, credible and sufficient. |
| 6-8 | With competing sources in a classroom problem, check whether evidence is relevant, credible and sufficient. |
| 9-12 | Independently in a complex problem, check whether evidence is relevant, credible and sufficient. |
| adult | Across unfamiliar personal or professional contexts, check whether evidence is relevant, credible and sufficient. |
| Level | What a teacher can observe |
|---|---|
| Beginning | With substantial prompting, attempts to check whether evidence is relevant, credible and sufficient. |
| Developing | With occasional prompting, can check whether evidence is relevant, credible and sufficient. |
| Proficient | Independently, can check whether evidence is relevant, credible and sufficient. |
| Mastered | Across unfamiliar contexts, consistently able to check whether evidence is relevant, credible and sufficient. |
analogical-reasoning
Mapping the structure of a familiar case onto a new idea and finding where the mapping breaks.
| Band | Observable work |
|---|---|
| K-2 | With a familiar example and an adult prompt, map relationships between cases and name a mismatch. |
| 3-5 | With two familiar examples, map relationships between cases and name a mismatch. |
| 6-8 | With competing sources in a classroom problem, map relationships between cases and name a mismatch. |
| 9-12 | Independently in a complex problem, map relationships between cases and name a mismatch. |
| adult | Across unfamiliar personal or professional contexts, map relationships between cases and name a mismatch. |
| Level | What a teacher can observe |
|---|---|
| Beginning | With substantial prompting, attempts to map relationships between cases and name a mismatch. |
| Developing | With occasional prompting, can map relationships between cases and name a mismatch. |
| Proficient | Independently, can map relationships between cases and name a mismatch. |
| Mastered | Across unfamiliar contexts, consistently able to map relationships between cases and name a mismatch. |
mathematical-modelling
Turning a situation into quantities, relations and an objective, then solving and interpreting the result in context.
| Band | Observable work |
|---|---|
| K-2 | With a familiar example and an adult prompt, represent a situation with quantities and interpret the result. |
| 3-5 | With two familiar examples, represent a situation with quantities and interpret the result. |
| 6-8 | With competing sources in a classroom problem, represent a situation with quantities and interpret the result. |
| 9-12 | Independently in a complex problem, represent a situation with quantities and interpret the result. |
| adult | Across unfamiliar personal or professional contexts, represent a situation with quantities and interpret the result. |
| Level | What a teacher can observe |
|---|---|
| Beginning | With substantial prompting, attempts to represent a situation with quantities and interpret the result. |
| Developing | With occasional prompting, can represent a situation with quantities and interpret the result. |
| Proficient | Independently, can represent a situation with quantities and interpret the result. |
| Mastered | Across unfamiliar contexts, consistently able to represent a situation with quantities and interpret the result. |
reasonableness-check
Checking whether a result makes sense in the situation, with its units and scale.
| Band | Observable work |
|---|---|
| K-2 | With a familiar example and an adult prompt, check a result against its units, scale and context. |
| 3-5 | With two familiar examples, check a result against its units, scale and context. |
| 6-8 | With competing sources in a classroom problem, check a result against its units, scale and context. |
| 9-12 | Independently in a complex problem, check a result against its units, scale and context. |
| adult | Across unfamiliar personal or professional contexts, check a result against its units, scale and context. |
| Level | What a teacher can observe |
|---|---|
| Beginning | With substantial prompting, attempts to check a result against its units, scale and context. |
| Developing | With occasional prompting, can check a result against its units, scale and context. |
| Proficient | Independently, can check a result against its units, scale and context. |
| Mastered | Across unfamiliar contexts, consistently able to check a result against its units, scale and context. |
Argument (domain)
argument-construction
Stating a claim and backing it with reasons and evidence.
| Band | Observable work |
|---|---|
| K-2 | With a familiar example and an adult prompt, support a claim with reasons and evidence. |
| 3-5 | With two familiar examples, support a claim with reasons and evidence. |
| 6-8 | With competing sources in a classroom problem, support a claim with reasons and evidence. |
| 9-12 | Independently in a complex problem, support a claim with reasons and evidence. |
| adult | Across unfamiliar personal or professional contexts, support a claim with reasons and evidence. |
| Level | What a teacher can observe |
|---|---|
| Beginning | With substantial prompting, attempts to support a claim with reasons and evidence. |
| Developing | With occasional prompting, can support a claim with reasons and evidence. |
| Proficient | Independently, can support a claim with reasons and evidence. |
| Mastered | Across unfamiliar contexts, consistently able to support a claim with reasons and evidence. |
argument-evaluation
Judging whether reasoning holds and whether the evidence is relevant and enough.
| Band | Observable work |
|---|---|
| K-2 | With a familiar example and an adult prompt, judge whether a conclusion follows from its support. |
| 3-5 | With two familiar examples, judge whether a conclusion follows from its support. |
| 6-8 | With competing sources in a classroom problem, judge whether a conclusion follows from its support. |
| 9-12 | Independently in a complex problem, judge whether a conclusion follows from its support. |
| adult | Across unfamiliar personal or professional contexts, judge whether a conclusion follows from its support. |
| Level | What a teacher can observe |
|---|---|
| Beginning | With substantial prompting, attempts to judge whether a conclusion follows from its support. |
| Developing | With occasional prompting, can judge whether a conclusion follows from its support. |
| Proficient | Independently, can judge whether a conclusion follows from its support. |
| Mastered | Across unfamiliar contexts, consistently able to judge whether a conclusion follows from its support. |
counterargument
Meeting the strongest objection, or the strongest form of the other side, instead of a weak version of it.
| Band | Observable work |
|---|---|
| K-2 | With a familiar example and an adult prompt, answer the strongest objection fairly. |
| 3-5 | With two familiar examples, answer the strongest objection fairly. |
| 6-8 | With competing sources in a classroom problem, answer the strongest objection fairly. |
| 9-12 | Independently in a complex problem, answer the strongest objection fairly. |
| adult | Across unfamiliar personal or professional contexts, answer the strongest objection fairly. |
| Level | What a teacher can observe |
|---|---|
| Beginning | With substantial prompting, attempts to answer the strongest objection fairly. |
| Developing | With occasional prompting, can answer the strongest objection fairly. |
| Proficient | Independently, can answer the strongest objection fairly. |
| Mastered | Across unfamiliar contexts, consistently able to answer the strongest objection fairly. |
Perspective (domain)
perspective-taking
Representing a view you do not hold fairly, and seeing who is affected by a choice.
| Band | Observable work |
|---|---|
| K-2 | With a familiar example and an adult prompt, explain another viewpoint and who a choice affects. |
| 3-5 | With two familiar examples, explain another viewpoint and who a choice affects. |
| 6-8 | With competing sources in a classroom problem, explain another viewpoint and who a choice affects. |
| 9-12 | Independently in a complex problem, explain another viewpoint and who a choice affects. |
| adult | Across unfamiliar personal or professional contexts, explain another viewpoint and who a choice affects. |
| Level | What a teacher can observe |
|---|---|
| Beginning | With substantial prompting, attempts to explain another viewpoint and who a choice affects. |
| Developing | With occasional prompting, can explain another viewpoint and who a choice affects. |
| Proficient | Independently, can explain another viewpoint and who a choice affects. |
| Mastered | Across unfamiliar contexts, consistently able to explain another viewpoint and who a choice affects. |
Reasoning under uncertainty (domain)
causal-reasoning
Tracing chains of cause and effect, testing each link, and weighing factors that push the other way.
| Band | Observable work |
|---|---|
| K-2 | With a familiar example and an adult prompt, trace a cause and test each link to its effects. |
| 3-5 | With two familiar examples, trace a cause and test each link to its effects. |
| 6-8 | With competing sources in a classroom problem, trace a cause and test each link to its effects. |
| 9-12 | Independently in a complex problem, trace a cause and test each link to its effects. |
| adult | Across unfamiliar personal or professional contexts, trace a cause and test each link to its effects. |
| Level | What a teacher can observe |
|---|---|
| Beginning | With substantial prompting, attempts to trace a cause and test each link to its effects. |
| Developing | With occasional prompting, can trace a cause and test each link to its effects. |
| Proficient | Independently, can trace a cause and test each link to its effects. |
| Mastered | Across unfamiliar contexts, consistently able to trace a cause and test each link to its effects. |
uncertainty
Naming what is not known and how far a conclusion can be trusted.
| Band | Observable work |
|---|---|
| K-2 | With a familiar example and an adult prompt, state what is unknown and qualify a conclusion. |
| 3-5 | With two familiar examples, state what is unknown and qualify a conclusion. |
| 6-8 | With competing sources in a classroom problem, state what is unknown and qualify a conclusion. |
| 9-12 | Independently in a complex problem, state what is unknown and qualify a conclusion. |
| adult | Across unfamiliar personal or professional contexts, state what is unknown and qualify a conclusion. |
| Level | What a teacher can observe |
|---|---|
| Beginning | With substantial prompting, attempts to state what is unknown and qualify a conclusion. |
| Developing | With occasional prompting, can state what is unknown and qualify a conclusion. |
| Proficient | Independently, can state what is unknown and qualify a conclusion. |
| Mastered | Across unfamiliar contexts, consistently able to state what is unknown and qualify a conclusion. |
model-limitations
Saying what a model, analogy or representation captures well and what it leaves out or distorts.
| Band | Observable work |
|---|---|
| K-2 | With a familiar example and an adult prompt, identify what a representation leaves out. |
| 3-5 | With two familiar examples, identify what a representation leaves out. |
| 6-8 | With competing sources in a classroom problem, identify what a representation leaves out. |
| 9-12 | Independently in a complex problem, identify what a representation leaves out. |
| adult | Across unfamiliar personal or professional contexts, identify what a representation leaves out. |
| Level | What a teacher can observe |
|---|---|
| Beginning | With substantial prompting, attempts to identify what a representation leaves out. |
| Developing | With occasional prompting, can identify what a representation leaves out. |
| Proficient | Independently, can identify what a representation leaves out. |
| Mastered | Across unfamiliar contexts, consistently able to identify what a representation leaves out. |
Revision and metacognition (domain)
revision
Improving your own reasoning in response to criticism and saying what changed and why.
| Band | Observable work |
|---|---|
| K-2 | With a familiar example and an adult prompt, improve reasoning and explain what changed and why. |
| 3-5 | With two familiar examples, improve reasoning and explain what changed and why. |
| 6-8 | With competing sources in a classroom problem, improve reasoning and explain what changed and why. |
| 9-12 | Independently in a complex problem, improve reasoning and explain what changed and why. |
| adult | Across unfamiliar personal or professional contexts, improve reasoning and explain what changed and why. |
| Level | What a teacher can observe |
|---|---|
| Beginning | With substantial prompting, attempts to improve reasoning and explain what changed and why. |
| Developing | With occasional prompting, can improve reasoning and explain what changed and why. |
| Proficient | Independently, can improve reasoning and explain what changed and why. |
| Mastered | Across unfamiliar contexts, consistently able to improve reasoning and explain what changed and why. |
self-monitoring
Identify a weakness in your approach and adjust it.
| Band | Observable work |
|---|---|
| K-2 | With a familiar example and an adult prompt, identify a weakness in your approach and adjust it. |
| 3-5 | With two familiar examples, identify a weakness in your approach and adjust it. |
| 6-8 | With competing sources in a classroom problem, identify a weakness in your approach and adjust it. |
| 9-12 | Independently in a complex problem, identify a weakness in your approach and adjust it. |
| adult | Across unfamiliar personal or professional contexts, identify a weakness in your approach and adjust it. |
| Level | What a teacher can observe |
|---|---|
| Beginning | With substantial prompting, attempts to identify a weakness in your approach and adjust it. |
| Developing | With occasional prompting, can identify a weakness in your approach and adjust it. |
| Proficient | Independently, can identify a weakness in your approach and adjust it. |
| Mastered | Across unfamiliar contexts, consistently able to identify a weakness in your approach and adjust it. |
Communication (domain)
audience-communication
Explaining an idea in terms a named audience can follow.
| Band | Observable work |
|---|---|
| K-2 | With a familiar example and an adult prompt, explain reasoning in terms the audience can follow. |
| 3-5 | With two familiar examples, explain reasoning in terms the audience can follow. |
| 6-8 | With competing sources in a classroom problem, explain reasoning in terms the audience can follow. |
| 9-12 | Independently in a complex problem, explain reasoning in terms the audience can follow. |
| adult | Across unfamiliar personal or professional contexts, explain reasoning in terms the audience can follow. |
| Level | What a teacher can observe |
|---|---|
| Beginning | With substantial prompting, attempts to explain reasoning in terms the audience can follow. |
| Developing | With occasional prompting, can explain reasoning in terms the audience can follow. |
| Proficient | Independently, can explain reasoning in terms the audience can follow. |
| Mastered | Across unfamiliar contexts, consistently able to explain reasoning in terms the audience can follow. |
AI literacy (strand)
ai-output-evaluation
Check an AI claim against independent evidence.
| Band | Observable work |
|---|---|
| K-2 | With a familiar example and an adult prompt, check an AI claim against independent evidence. |
| 3-5 | With two familiar examples, check an AI claim against independent evidence. |
| 6-8 | With competing sources in a classroom problem, check an AI claim against independent evidence. |
| 9-12 | Independently in a complex problem, check an AI claim against independent evidence. |
| adult | Across unfamiliar personal or professional contexts, check an AI claim against independent evidence. |
| Level | What a teacher can observe |
|---|---|
| Beginning | With substantial prompting, attempts to check an AI claim against independent evidence. |
| Developing | With occasional prompting, can check an AI claim against independent evidence. |
| Proficient | Independently, can check an AI claim against independent evidence. |
| Mastered | Across unfamiliar contexts, consistently able to check an AI claim against independent evidence. |
prompting-as-inquiry
Ask a model a question that exposes assumptions or tests a claim.
| Band | Observable work |
|---|---|
| K-2 | With a familiar example and an adult prompt, ask a model a question that exposes assumptions or tests a claim. |
| 3-5 | With two familiar examples, ask a model a question that exposes assumptions or tests a claim. |
| 6-8 | With competing sources in a classroom problem, ask a model a question that exposes assumptions or tests a claim. |
| 9-12 | Independently in a complex problem, ask a model a question that exposes assumptions or tests a claim. |
| adult | Across unfamiliar personal or professional contexts, ask a model a question that exposes assumptions or tests a claim. |
| Level | What a teacher can observe |
|---|---|
| Beginning | With substantial prompting, attempts to ask a model a question that exposes assumptions or tests a claim. |
| Developing | With occasional prompting, can ask a model a question that exposes assumptions or tests a claim. |
| Proficient | Independently, can ask a model a question that exposes assumptions or tests a claim. |
| Mastered | Across unfamiliar contexts, consistently able to ask a model a question that exposes assumptions or tests a claim. |
ai-bias-provenance
Trace an AI claim to its sources and test for missing perspectives.
| Band | Observable work |
|---|---|
| K-2 | With a familiar example and an adult prompt, trace an AI claim to its sources and test for missing perspectives. |
| 3-5 | With two familiar examples, trace an AI claim to its sources and test for missing perspectives. |
| 6-8 | With competing sources in a classroom problem, trace an AI claim to its sources and test for missing perspectives. |
| 9-12 | Independently in a complex problem, trace an AI claim to its sources and test for missing perspectives. |
| adult | Across unfamiliar personal or professional contexts, trace an AI claim to its sources and test for missing perspectives. |
| Level | What a teacher can observe |
|---|---|
| Beginning | With substantial prompting, attempts to trace an AI claim to its sources and test for missing perspectives. |
| Developing | With occasional prompting, can trace an AI claim to its sources and test for missing perspectives. |
| Proficient | Independently, can trace an AI claim to its sources and test for missing perspectives. |
| Mastered | Across unfamiliar contexts, consistently able to trace an AI claim to its sources and test for missing perspectives. |
ai-trust-calibration
Explain when to verify, defer or decline to use an AI answer.
| Band | Observable work |
|---|---|
| K-2 | With a familiar example and an adult prompt, explain when to verify, defer or decline to use an AI answer. |
| 3-5 | With two familiar examples, explain when to verify, defer or decline to use an AI answer. |
| 6-8 | With competing sources in a classroom problem, explain when to verify, defer or decline to use an AI answer. |
| 9-12 | Independently in a complex problem, explain when to verify, defer or decline to use an AI answer. |
| adult | Across unfamiliar personal or professional contexts, explain when to verify, defer or decline to use an AI answer. |
| Level | What a teacher can observe |
|---|---|
| Beginning | With substantial prompting, attempts to explain when to verify, defer or decline to use an AI answer. |
| Developing | With occasional prompting, can explain when to verify, defer or decline to use an AI answer. |
| Proficient | Independently, can explain when to verify, defer or decline to use an AI answer. |
| Mastered | Across unfamiliar contexts, consistently able to explain when to verify, defer or decline to use an AI answer. |
Dispositions (strand)
open-mindedness
Consider contrary evidence before settling on a view.
| Band | Observable work |
|---|---|
| K-2 | With a familiar example and an adult prompt, consider contrary evidence before settling on a view. |
| 3-5 | With two familiar examples, consider contrary evidence before settling on a view. |
| 6-8 | With competing sources in a classroom problem, consider contrary evidence before settling on a view. |
| 9-12 | Independently in a complex problem, consider contrary evidence before settling on a view. |
| adult | Across unfamiliar personal or professional contexts, consider contrary evidence before settling on a view. |
| Level | What a teacher can observe |
|---|---|
| Beginning | With substantial prompting, attempts to consider contrary evidence before settling on a view. |
| Developing | With occasional prompting, can consider contrary evidence before settling on a view. |
| Proficient | Independently, can consider contrary evidence before settling on a view. |
| Mastered | Across unfamiliar contexts, consistently able to consider contrary evidence before settling on a view. |
intellectual-humility
Acknowledge a valid criticism or limit to your knowledge.
| Band | Observable work |
|---|---|
| K-2 | With a familiar example and an adult prompt, acknowledge a valid criticism or limit to your knowledge. |
| 3-5 | With two familiar examples, acknowledge a valid criticism or limit to your knowledge. |
| 6-8 | With competing sources in a classroom problem, acknowledge a valid criticism or limit to your knowledge. |
| 9-12 | Independently in a complex problem, acknowledge a valid criticism or limit to your knowledge. |
| adult | Across unfamiliar personal or professional contexts, acknowledge a valid criticism or limit to your knowledge. |
| Level | What a teacher can observe |
|---|---|
| Beginning | With substantial prompting, attempts to acknowledge a valid criticism or limit to your knowledge. |
| Developing | With occasional prompting, can acknowledge a valid criticism or limit to your knowledge. |
| Proficient | Independently, can acknowledge a valid criticism or limit to your knowledge. |
| Mastered | Across unfamiliar contexts, consistently able to acknowledge a valid criticism or limit to your knowledge. |
persistence
Try a revised reasoning approach after a setback.
| Band | Observable work |
|---|---|
| K-2 | With a familiar example and an adult prompt, try a revised reasoning approach after a setback. |
| 3-5 | With two familiar examples, try a revised reasoning approach after a setback. |
| 6-8 | With competing sources in a classroom problem, try a revised reasoning approach after a setback. |
| 9-12 | Independently in a complex problem, try a revised reasoning approach after a setback. |
| adult | Across unfamiliar personal or professional contexts, try a revised reasoning approach after a setback. |
| Level | What a teacher can observe |
|---|---|
| Beginning | With substantial prompting, attempts to try a revised reasoning approach after a setback. |
| Developing | With occasional prompting, can try a revised reasoning approach after a setback. |
| Proficient | Independently, can try a revised reasoning approach after a setback. |
| Mastered | Across unfamiliar contexts, consistently able to try a revised reasoning approach after a setback. |
fair-mindedness
Apply the same standards to your view and an opposing view.
| Band | Observable work |
|---|---|
| K-2 | With a familiar example and an adult prompt, apply the same standards to your view and an opposing view. |
| 3-5 | With two familiar examples, apply the same standards to your view and an opposing view. |
| 6-8 | With competing sources in a classroom problem, apply the same standards to your view and an opposing view. |
| 9-12 | Independently in a complex problem, apply the same standards to your view and an opposing view. |
| adult | Across unfamiliar personal or professional contexts, apply the same standards to your view and an opposing view. |
| Level | What a teacher can observe |
|---|---|
| Beginning | With substantial prompting, attempts to apply the same standards to your view and an opposing view. |
| Developing | With occasional prompting, can apply the same standards to your view and an opposing view. |
| Proficient | Independently, can apply the same standards to your view and an opposing view. |
| Mastered | Across unfamiliar contexts, consistently able to apply the same standards to your view and an opposing view. |
The existing dimensions also record observable evidence for self-monitoring, fair-mindedness, open-mindedness and intellectual humility. Persistence and evidence evaluation are not separately measured by current dimensions. These are task-specific observations, not personality diagnoses. AI output evaluation, prompting as inquiry, AI bias and provenance, and AI trust calibration are defined and available for mapping, but the current dimensions do not separately measure them. An AI topic alone does not earn an AI-literacy skill score.
Thinking demand: our four-point scale
A rating describes what an item asks the learner to do. It does not rate the learner, difficulty, time spent or probability of success. The scale is authored by Cognificance; it is not Webb's Depth of Knowledge and does not reproduce Webb's rubric.
| Rating | Operation | Example of our own |
|---|---|---|
| 1 - Recall | Recognize or retrieve a fact, term or familiar feature. | Name the parts shown in a diagram. |
| 2 - Apply | Carry out a familiar procedure or use an idea in a specified situation. | Use a given relation to calculate a quantity, then state its units. |
| 3 - Analyze | Connect parts, interpret evidence, compare explanations or trace a relationship. | Explain which change in the data supports an inference. |
| 4 - Evaluate/create | Judge a case against reasons or criteria, revise it, justify a decision, or create a sustained explanation or solution. | Defend a conclusion against an objection and revise it when evidence changes. |
Draft annotations come from reproducible, explicit text and framework-context rules over licensed catalog labels, not runtime AI. A second editorial pass by the coding agent read a stable 10% sample (rounded up) from each framework against this rubric, recorded disagreements, and corrected rules across all items. The sample informed rule changes, so sample agreement is not an independent estimate of rule accuracy. This is not an independent human-expert review, inter-rater study or psychometric validation. Topic-only tags receive conservative ratings unless a framework context establishes an operation, such as an NGSS performance expectation. Terse labels can miss context; consult the official item and task before using a rating for teaching.
Unmatched topic labels have no generic skill link and remain deliberately unrated, as listed by framework below. Descriptive progressions and indicators may carry ratings but have no Demands links. Profile targets carry ratings and Assesses links to their named skills; they have no duplicate Demands links. The 36 CAST core-idea headings name content such as Energy rather than an operation and are deliberately unrated. A missing rating means unknown, never recall or zero. Disabled ISTE and CASEL content stays unavailable regardless of its drafted annotation. Institution imports may supply their own reviewed 1-4 ratings and links to Cognificance skills; imports without them remain unrated.
| Framework | Rated / leaves | Sample read | Initial rating disagreements | Initial skill disagreements | Deliberately unannotated |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AC9-CCT | 73 / 87 | 9 | 2 / 9 (22.22%) | 6 / 9 (66.67%) | 14 items
|
| AC9-DL | 25 / 68 | 7 | 7 / 7 (100.00%) | 7 / 7 (100.00%) | 43 items
|
| C3 | 209 / 338 | 34 | 17 / 34 (50.00%) | 15 / 34 (44.12%) | 129 items
|
| CA-CAST | 0 / 36 | 4 | 0 / 4 (0.00%) | 0 / 4 (0.00%) | 36 items
|
| CAASPP-SB-ELA | 152 / 152 | 16 | 6 / 16 (37.50%) | 8 / 16 (50.00%) | None |
| CAASPP-SB-MATH | 117 / 117 | 12 | 3 / 12 (25.00%) | 3 / 12 (25.00%) | None |
| CASEL (disabled) | 4 / 5 | 1 | 1 / 1 (100.00%) | 0 / 1 (0.00%) | 1 items
|
| CCSS-ELA | 574 / 574 | 58 | 24 / 58 (41.38%) | 13 / 58 (22.41%) | None |
| CCSS-MATH | 393 / 393 | 40 | 13 / 40 (32.50%) | 1 / 40 (2.50%) | None |
| COGNIFICANCE-PROFILE | 24 / 24 | 3 | 2 / 3 (66.67%) | 3 / 3 (100.00%) | 24 items
|
| COGNIFICANCE | 216 / 216 | 22 | 4 / 22 (18.18%) | 22 / 22 (100.00%) | 216 items
|
| ENG-NC-EN | 283 / 283 | 29 | 13 / 29 (44.83%) | 3 / 29 (10.34%) | None |
| ENG-NC-MA | 409 / 409 | 41 | 7 / 41 (17.07%) | 17 / 41 (41.46%) | None |
| ENG-NC-SC | 174 / 423 | 43 | 30 / 43 (69.77%) | 26 / 43 (60.47%) | 249 items
|
| FL-BEST | 982 / 982 | 99 | 38 / 99 (38.38%) | 53 / 99 (53.54%) | None |
| ISTE-S (disabled) | 9 / 12 | 2 | 2 / 2 (100.00%) | 2 / 2 (100.00%) | 3 items
|
| NGSS | 254 / 343 | 35 | 13 / 35 (37.14%) | 11 / 35 (31.43%) | 89 items
|
| OECD-AILIT | 42 / 57 | 6 | 4 / 6 (66.67%) | 4 / 6 (66.67%) | 15 items
|
| TEKS | 2173 / 3091 | 310 | 142 / 310 (45.81%) | 161 / 310 (51.94%) | 918 items
|
| UNESCO-AICFS | 25 / 36 | 4 | 3 / 4 (75.00%) | 2 / 4 (50.00%) | 11 items
|
All sampled disagreements were resolved through rule corrections or explicit unrated decisions. Agreement on the sample does not establish accuracy for unsampled items. The catalog's counts and mappings describe the shipped collection, not every standard published worldwide.
Keep your standards and assessments
The layer sits over other frameworks. A standard or assessment target names the Cognificance skills it demands, with a short rationale and, where the task is specified, a demand rating. It does not replace a curriculum, assessment blueprint, official interpretation or school's judgment.
| Framework family | Example | Critical-thinking lens |
|---|---|---|
| CCSS-ELA | CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.7.1 | Demand 4: argument-construction, argument-evaluation, audience-communication, counterargument. |
| CCSS-MATH | CCSS.Math.Content.HSA.APR.C.4 | Demand 4: argument-construction, evidence-evaluation, mathematical-modelling. |
| C3 | D1.5.9-12 | Demand 3: evidence-evaluation, perspective-taking. |
| TEKS | 111.4(b)(1)(B) | Demand 3: mathematical-modelling, model-limitations, reasonableness-check. |
| FL-BEST | ELA.12.R.2.4 | Demand 4: argument-construction, argument-evaluation, audience-communication. |
| NGSS | MS-LS2-4 | Demand 4: argument-construction, argument-evaluation, causal-reasoning. |
| NGSS | SEP1.9-12.7 | Demand 3: assumption-analysis, evidence-evaluation, questioning. |
| AC9-CCT | AC9S10I07 | Demand 4: argument-construction, argument-evaluation, evidence-evaluation. |
| AC9-DL | AC9DL.PS.MPI.L5 | Unrated; no matched demand rule. |
| ENG-NC-EN | Y3-4.RWR.1 | Demand 2: audience-communication. |
| ENG-NC-MA | KS4.GM.4 | Demand 4: argument-construction, mathematical-modelling. |
| ENG-NC-SC | UKS2.WS.4 | Demand 3: evidence-evaluation, questioning. |
| OECD-AILIT | M1-I | Demand 3: ai-trust-calibration. |
| UNESCO-AICFS | CG4.2.1.2 | Demand 3: ai-trust-calibration. |
| CAASPP-SB-MATH | C3-T-G8-E | Demand 3: argument-evaluation, mathematical-modelling. |
| CAASPP-SB-ELA | E4-T-G7-4 | Demand 4: argument-construction, argument-evaluation, audience-communication, evidence-evaluation. |
| CA-CAST | Core-idea headings | Deliberately unrated; links to performance expectations remain available. |
The picker, template alignment display, teacher assistant and staff Gap view show demand ratings and demanded skills. In the Gap view, choose Cognificance skills, the formative Profile or any enabled framework. For standards and assessment items carrying ratings, filter by a 1-4 demand rating and order highest demand first. Cognificance Domain, Strand and Skill rows are not rated, so their demand filter and demand order are disabled. The demand filter and order apply before the 100-item limit; weakest ordering applies to the listed subset and breaks ties within a demand rating when both orders are on. Progression and Indicator rows are excluded for every framework; Domain, Strand and Skill rows remain. A demand filter hides unrated items, including parents. Evidence reached only through Demands is marked "via Cognificance skill". Template search and "Also supports" never follow Demands; no walk enters descriptive progression or indicator children. The Profile is formative only and shows no predicted or certified score. "Also supports" follows directional catalog links for at most two steps and reports truncation at its bounds. A private institution framework is visible only to its institution and platform administrators. A link indicates support, not full standard coverage or equivalence.
The Cognificance Critical Thinking Profile: formative only
The Profile is an assessment framework with nine domain/strand claims, 24 skill targets and four formative levels. Each target assesses its named Cognificance skill. A run contributes evidence only for what its scoring dimensions measure; other items are derived through catalog links when read, never saved as extra measured observations. No evidence means unknown, not a low score.
For example, evidence on argument construction supports the Profile's argument-construction target and standards whose demands name that skill; standards can in turn support assessment targets that assess them. One observation can therefore relate to several frameworks without pretending the learner sat several tests. The two-hop bound and catalog truncation apply; the mapping does not predict CCSS mastery, a state-test score or a certified result.
AI-run challenges score the reasoning shown in the interaction rather than the final answer alone. Scoring is a formative model judgment and can be wrong. Repeated graded runs supply further observations. For a self-running learner with a selected framework and relevant skill evidence, recommendations first try direct alignments to the five weakest observed items in that framework. Only when none has an eligible template do they use a demanded measured skill below the Proficient level. Each path considers at most 100 published, age-eligible self-run templates by title then id, and the named item always belongs to the selected framework. This does not change assigned-student progression.
How it compares with established critical-thinking assessments
Publisher pages checked 22 October 2026. This table compares the described products, not every service their publishers may offer. "Not established" means the linked public pages do not establish that capability; it does not assert the product lacks it. Prices and licences can change. No publisher endorses Cognificance.
| Offering / publisher | What and how | Frequency and reporting | School standards, AI literacy and demand ratings | Cost model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cognificance / AI Challenge | Task-specific thinking skills, measured through rubric judgments on AI-run interactions. Formative only; no validated norms or certified score. | Each graded run; skill observations and formative levels. | Demand links across the shipped catalog, 1-4 ratings, progressions and indicators. AI-literacy vocabulary is defined but not separately scored. | Layer and Profile included with AI Challenge. |
| CCTST / Insight Assessment | Scenario questions assess reasoning skills including analysis, evaluation and inference; a timed 40-question administration. | Reports per administration; individual and group results, skill metrics and comparison percentiles. Repeated use depends on the testing project. | Those pages do not establish school-standard crosswalks, per-item demand ratings or an AI-literacy subscore. | Paid licence, price on request. |
| Paul-Elder materials and essay test / Foundation for Critical Thinking | Analysis and appraisal of a supplied author's reasoning through written responses. The publisher also offers a concepts test. | Essay use follows the educator's assessment design. The online concepts licence permits up to eight administrations over four years and progress comparisons. | The linked assessment pages do not establish catalog crosswalks, an AI-literacy subscore or per-item demand ratings. | Paid materials; online concepts test is licensed per student with published volume tiers. |
| Watson-Glaser / Pearson TalentLens | Item-banked timed questions on reasoning from written information; 40 items. | Per administration; profile percentiles and development/interview reports, with comparison norms. | The product page does not establish school-standard crosswalks, an AI-literacy subscore or per-item demand ratings. | Paid licence; publisher's regional price list; contact sales for applicable licensing. |
| Habits of Mind / Institute for Habits of Mind | Thinking dispositions; its page describes observation, reflections and student work, an assessment builder and dashboard, plus AI-powered premium tools. | Ongoing development and observation, rather than only a timed test; detailed analytics are described for premium tools. | The reviewed page does not establish crosswalks to every school's standards, the same AI-literacy skill scale or per-item demand ratings. AI tools are not evidence of an AI-literacy subscore. | Free resources; premium tools use a paid licence, price on request. The public page does not establish a premium price. |
Cognificance combines repeated formative challenge evidence, a shared skill vocabulary and explicit catalog demand annotations. Standards mapping and repeated assessment also exist elsewhere: EdGate offers standards crosswalk services, while WebbAlign offers DOK and alignment work. We make no exclusivity claim. CCTST and Watson-Glaser publish normed comparison reporting; Cognificance does not provide that evidence or those scores. Curricular mappings do not establish psychometric validity.
Related work, not adopted content
- Paul-Elder / Foundation for Critical Thinking: related attention to examining reasoning and intellectual standards.
- Facione/Delphi / Insight Assessment: related conception of reasoning skills; not a validation of our measures.
- Habits of Mind / Institute for Habits of Mind: related emphasis on thinking dispositions and observation over time.
- IB approaches to learning / International Baccalaureate: related attention to transferable learning and thinking skills.
- AP Seminar / College Board: related emphasis on inquiry, evidence, perspectives and communication.
- PISA creative thinking / OECD: related interest in generating, evaluating and improving ideas.
These are related approaches, not our rubrics, imported framework content, endorsements or score conversions. Cognificance's descriptions, indicators and demand scale are authored for this platform.