Randomized trial develops a bounded calculus to evaluate learning evidence with AI's role, suggesting implications for knowledge assessment.
BIT-CSKC-KPLR-001 develops a bounded calculus for determining what learning evidence may support about a human learner when artificial intelligence participates in creating an artifact. Its central boundary is: AI completion does not imply human learning. The work separates LearningArtifact, AssessmentReceipt, CompetenceClaim, Credential, and Authority. It formalizes assistance disclosure, separate human-assessment channels, transfer evidence, domain and scope boundedness, temporal revalidation, provenance-preserving portability, challenge handling, and receipt non-minting. R1 contains the F5 research core and the F6A formal closure. F5 reports a bounded synthetic corpus of 43 cases, 10/10 valid acceptance, zero false admission, and evaluator agreement across exactly 73,728 states in the locked finite projection space. F6A preserves the T1–T8 statement surface and compiles the selected core under exact Lean 4.30.0 in two byte-identical clean builds. The theorem-level trusted-base union is {propext}; no user-defined axiom, sorry, admit, or unsafe declaration is used. The resulting claim is mechanized supportability within the frozen KPLR profile. It is not a claim of human competence truth, credential validity, professional or legal authority, field validity, production readiness, educational fairness, security, privacy, legal compliance, or external independent review. KPLR references AIDC for subject, agent, identity, and delegation binding. It does not modify AIDC, inherit authority from AIDC, or mint authority.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bùi Quang Trịnh (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: