Rationale
"Parties attended" vs "Grade (GPA)" on the Graph tab. This is the single best demographic targeting in the entire trial set. Every college student immediately understands this tradeoff. It's relatable, a little funny, and makes the inverse relationship viscerally obvious. Loses a point because the Example tab seesaw uses abstract "A" and "B" labels instead of named quantities. The seesaw concept is right; the labeling is generic.
Fix
Label the Example seesaw with something relatable instead of A/B. "Sleep" vs "Screen time." "Study hours" vs "Free time." Make the abstract concrete before the graph makes it data.
Citation
dashboard feedback "More geared towards female college students." The parties/grades graph does this perfectly.
Rationale
"When one goes up, the other goes down." Clean. "They can never move in the same direction." Definitive. "These terms will come up later in detail. For now, just notice: they follow the same seesaw pattern you just learned." Same excellent scaffolding as the Directly Related card: tells the student what to focus on and what to ignore for now. Conversational, supportive, never condescending.
Fix
None needed.
Citation
design guide §1
Rationale
The progression is well scaffolded: concept (text) → seesaw (concrete, tactile) → graph (abstract, data) → seesaw with real terms (ultrasound application). A beginner can follow this. The seesaw makes the concept physical before the graph makes it mathematical. Deducting because the In Ultrasound seesaw drops in "Freq" and "Period" without defining them first; the dropdowns below provide definitions but the student encounters the seesaw before reading them.
Fix
On the In Ultrasound tab, add a one-line sentence above the seesaw: "Frequency and Period are inversely related. Drag to see." The dropdowns below provide the detail. Or default the seesaw labels to full words ("Frequency" and "Period") instead of abbreviations.
Citation
design guide §1
Rationale
Concept → Example → Graph → In Ultrasound → Quiz. Correct flow. "Graph" replaces "Visual," appropriate for this concept. Bridge buttons present and well-labeled ("See an example →," "See the pattern on a graph →," "Where does this show up in ultrasound? →"). No Cover or Self-Sort visible.
Fix
Confirm Cover and Self-Sort exist.
Citation
design guide §2
Rationale
"When one goes up, the other goes down. They always move in opposite directions." Concept, not dictionary. Mirrors the Directly Related card's structure perfectly. These two cards are the concept-tab gold standard for the trial set.
Fix
None needed.
Citation
acoustic-waves general
Rationale
The seesaw is the best example implementation in the trial set. It's a draggable model (top of the control hierarchy). It starts balanced (A: 50, B: 50). The student grabs either end and drags. The numbers update in real time. The summary reinforces: "When you push one side of a seesaw down, the other side goes up. They can never move in the same direction." The concept is physically demonstrated through direct manipulation. Jenny liked this enough to compare favorably to Rocketship.
Fix
Replace A/B labels with relatable names (see A1). The seesaw visual is code-drawn but reads as a seesaw (triangle fulcrum, bar, weighted ends). It's functional UI, not scene-setting illustration, so the code-drawn approach is acceptable here. Adding illustrated weight icons on each end would elevate it.
Citation
design guide §6 "Seesaw/knob/draggable model" is at the top of the control hierarchy. This card implements the literal first item in that list.
Rationale
Best In Ultrasound tab in the trial set. It re-uses the seesaw pattern from the Example tab but replaces abstract A/B with Frequency and Period. The student already learned the seesaw mechanic; now they apply it to real ultrasound terms. "Grab Frequency or Period and drag it." Direct manipulation of actual clinical quantities. Below: the same scaffolding text ("these terms will come up later") + Frequency and Period dropdowns with correct Definition/Example format and Jenny's exact anchor words ("How many," "How long," "one complete cycle"). This is the template for what every In Ultrasound tab should be.
Fix
Use full words "Frequency" and "Period" on the seesaw instead of "Freq." Default the dropdowns collapsed (they appear expanded in the screenshot). Minor polish.
Citation
design guide §2 "In Ultrasound: where this concept shows up in real scanning." inverse-related feedback Jenny's anchor words for Frequency and Period are correctly implemented.
Rationale
"Inversely related" in blue throughout. "Frequency" in red/coral on the seesaw and in its dropdown header. "Period" in blue/indigo on the seesaw and in its dropdown header. The red/blue pairing on the seesaw creates an immediate visual shorthand: red dot goes down, blue dot goes up. Consistent within the card. Cross-card verification needed for Frequency and Period colors.
Fix
Register Frequency (red) and Period (blue) in the master color list. Verify they match across all cards where these terms appear.
Citation
design guide §3
Rationale
Frequency: "Definition: How many times a sound wave repeats each second." / "Example: Think of it like a heartbeat. A faster heartbeat means a higher frequency." Period: "Definition: How long it takes for one complete cycle." / "Example: When frequency goes up, each cycle has less time to complete, so period goes down." Term names colored, Definition and Example labeled, anchor words bolded. Third card (after Reciprocals and Directly Related) to nail this format. The Period example is particularly strong because it ties back to the inverse relationship the student just learned on the seesaw.
Fix
None needed.
Citation
design guide §5
Rationale
"How many" bolded for Frequency. "How long" and "one complete cycle" bolded for Period. "Goes up," "goes down," "opposite directions" colored/bolded on the concept tab. These match Jenny's anchor word expectations. The Period definition's "one complete cycle" is a testable phrase that will appear on the SPI registry.
Fix
None needed.
Citation
inverse-related feedback
Rationale
Cannot evaluate from static screenshots.
Fix
Verify "opposite directions" animates on first view.
Citation
design guide §4
Rationale
"Goes up" in warm red. "Goes down" in cool blue/dark. On the concept tab, the pattern alternates: "goes up" (red), "goes down" (dark), then "goes down" (dark), "goes up" (red). The seesaw reinforces this: red dot = Freq, blue dot = Period. The Graph tab summary: "inversely related" in blue, "down from left to right" in red. Wait. "Down from left to right" should be in cool/blue (decrease direction), but it's displayed in red/warm. This is a directional color error on the Graph tab. The concept tab gets it right; the graph tab flips it.
Fix
On the Graph tab, "down from left to right" describes a decreasing pattern and should use the cool/blue color, not warm/red. The concept tab's color assignments are correct; match the graph to them.
Citation
design guide §4 "Warm color (red) for up/increase, cool color (blue) for down/decrease."
Rationale
Bold on directional anchors, definition labels, anchor words, and term names. No decorative bold. Clean throughout. Matches the Directly Related card's discipline.
Fix
None needed.
Citation
design guide §4
Rationale
No emdashes visible.
Fix
None needed.
Citation
design guide §3
Rationale
Two seesaws (Example + In Ultrasound): both are direct manipulation. The student grabs a weighted end and drags it. The other end responds. This is the top of the control hierarchy implemented twice. The Graph tab uses a slider (observation), but the slider is the bridge between two manipulation experiences, which makes it less offensive. Three interactive moments total; two are manipulation, one is observation. Best ratio in the trial set.
Fix
Replace the graph slider with direct manipulation (drag the dot on the curve, or click to add parties). Would make this card 3/3 manipulation with zero sliders.
Citation
design guide §6 "Seesaw/knob/draggable model" at top of hierarchy.
Rationale
Two seesaws (top of hierarchy) + one slider (bottom of hierarchy). The slider on the Graph tab is the same issue as the Directly Related card. Jenny said "I do not like having to drag the bar across the screen." This card proves the developer knows how to build seesaws but still defaults to sliders for graphs.
Fix
Kill the slider. Let the student drag the dot on the graph directly, or tap/click to increment parties. The seesaw pattern is already proven; the graph should match.
Citation
inverse-related feedback "I do not like having to drag the bar across the screen."
Rationale
No audio or haptic feedback on any interactive. The seesaw could have a satisfying tilt sound. The In Ultrasound seesaw with Frequency/Period could play a tone that changes pitch as frequency goes up and period goes down. This is a card about sound wave properties (frequency, period) with zero sound.
Fix
Add a pitch-shifting tone to the In Ultrasound seesaw: as the student drags Frequency up, play a tone that rises in pitch. As Period increases (frequency decreases), the tone lowers. This makes the inverse relationship between frequency and period audible, not just visual.
Citation
design guide §6 Sensory feedback.
Rationale
Every interactive earns its place. The Example seesaw physically demonstrates the concept (push one side down, the other goes up). The Graph shows the mathematical representation of the same idea. The In Ultrasound seesaw applies the concept to real terms (Frequency/Period). Each interactive teaches something the previous one didn't, and each builds on the last. Best interactive justification in the trial set.
Fix
None needed.
Citation
rubric v2 §E4
Rationale
No real illustrations anywhere. The seesaw is code-drawn (triangle, bar, circles). The graph is code-drawn (dots, axes). Both are functional UI and acceptable as code, but there's no scene-setting imagery to ground the experience. No illustrated playground seesaw for the Example. No illustrated party scene for the Graph. No clinical imagery for In Ultrasound.
Fix
Add an illustrated seesaw background or header image on the Example tab. Add an illustrated party/student scene on the Graph tab. Add clinical context imagery on the In Ultrasound tab. The code interactives stay; illustrations set the scene around them.
Citation
design guide §6b "Real illustrations for scenes, code only for behavior."
Rationale
The In Ultrasound tab uses the seesaw metaphor with Freq/Period labels. This is conceptually correct and pedagogically effective, but it's still an abstract seesaw, not a clinical representation. There's no transducer, no machine panel, no scan image. However, unlike other cards' In Ultrasound tabs, this one actually teaches the clinical concept effectively through the interactive. The seesaw works as an abstraction. Giving partial credit because the teaching is right even if the visual isn't clinical.
Fix
Consider adding a simplified ultrasound waveform alongside the seesaw that changes in real time as the student drags: more compressed waves when Frequency is high, more stretched waves when Period is high. Keep the seesaw as the control; add the waveform as the clinical visualization.
Citation
rubric v2 §F2
Rationale
No placeholder frames. Same pattern as every other card.
Fix
Add dashed placeholders where illustrations are needed.
Citation
design guide §6b
Rationale
Concept (simple text, three sentences) → Example (seesaw with A/B, no jargon, student controls the pace) → Graph (abstract data, slider-driven) → In Ultrasound (seesaw with clinical terms, student controls the pace). The progression from concrete to abstract is perfect. The student encounters the seesaw mechanic with safe A/B labels before encountering it with Frequency/Period labels. Each tab builds on the previous one. Best pacing in the trial set.
Fix
None needed.
Citation
design guide §7
Rationale
Concept: three sentences. Example: one sentence below seesaw + bridge button. Graph: one sentence above, three sentences below + bridge button. All excellent. In Ultrasound: seesaw + instruction + italicized scaffolding text + two expanded dropdowns with Definition/Example. The In Ultrasound tab scrolls significantly when both dropdowns are open. Same issue as the Directly Related card's In Ultrasound tab.
Fix
Default the Frequency and Period dropdowns to collapsed. The screenshot shows them expanded; if they auto-expand, that's too much text on load. Student should see the seesaw first, then choose to read definitions.
Citation
design guide §8
Rationale
The seesaw container has about 40% empty space above the seesaw mechanism on both the Example and In Ultrasound tabs. The seesaw sits in the lower half of a tall blue box. Same issue as the Directly Related card's waveform container. The Graph tab is better proportioned; the graph fills its container.
Fix
Reduce the seesaw container height to hug the seesaw. The fulcrum, bar, and weighted ends don't need that much headroom. Tighten both Example and In Ultrasound containers.
Citation
design guide §9
Rationale
Example: seesaw → "Opposite" label → instruction → summary → bridge. Clean hierarchy. The "Opposite" label in bold blue is a strong anchor that tells the student what to notice. Graph: instruction → graph → summary → bridge. Good. In Ultrasound: seesaw → instruction → scaffolding text → dropdowns. The hierarchy works; the scaffolding italics distinguish "guidance" from "content" effectively.
Fix
The numeric readout "A: 81 B: 19" is useful but small. Consider making it more prominent so the student sees the numbers change as they drag. On In Ultrasound, "Freq: 0 Period: 100" has the same issue.
Citation
design guide §9
Rationale
"Inversely Related" title on concept tab appears to use the correct brush font. "Opposite" label on the seesaw uses a bold serif that reads well. "Frequency" and "Period" dropdown headers appear to use the same treatment as the Directly Related card. Mixed compliance with the Tomarik Poster requirement for subtitles.
Fix
Verify Tomarik Poster for dropdown headers.
Citation
design guide §11
Rationale
Y-axis: "Grade (GPA)." X-axis: "Parties attended." Both meaningful and labeled. However, the Y-axis has no numeric scale visible (no 4.0, 3.0, etc.), and the X-axis has no numeric scale either. The Directly Related card's coffee graph had dollar amounts on Y and numbers on X. This one has labels but no scale. Partial credit.
Fix
Add GPA scale on Y (0.0 to 4.0) and party count on X (0 to some number). The labels are there; the scales are missing.
Citation
design guide §10
Rationale
Same scatter-trail pattern as the Directly Related graph (dots trailing the current position). The dashed trend line is present but subtle. No on-graph annotation connecting the visual to the concept. The summary text below ("the graph goes down from left to right") does the teaching; the graph itself is unannotated. The "Attend more parties" label below the slider is helpful context.
Fix
Add one annotation on the graph: an arrow showing the downward slope with "Inverse" or "Opposite directions" labeled. Simplify the scatter trail.
Citation
design guide §10