Met, partly met, not met — the three-word verdict vocabulary
Two assessors can look at the same paragraph and both be "right" in ordinary English. The fix is not more feeling — it is a shared vocabulary with sharp edges. Met, partly met, not met is that vocabulary, and it works because each word points at a different kind of gap.
What each verdict actually means
| Verdict | Definition | Typical comment |
|---|---|---|
| Met | The evidence satisfies the criterion's verb, for the brief's scenario, at the level the criterion sits at | "Explains two internal sources with repayment conditions tied to the bakery's cash cycle — A.P1 met" |
| Partly met | Some requirement is present but a named element is missing or shallow | "Sources described, not explained — no link to suitability for the scenario; A.P2 partly met" |
| Not met | The required element is absent or addresses a different question | "No calculations from the brief's data — B.P4 not met" |
"Partly met" is not a hedge. It is a specific claim: this much is there, that is missing. If you cannot name the missing element, you have not assessed the criterion yet.
Borderline cases: name them, then decide
Some evidence genuinely sits on the line. The professional move is to record the borderline in the comment and still commit to a verdict, because your assessment record needs a decision. "Borderline: the analysis of risk is present but thin; judged met at Pass level" is a defensible record. "Not sure" is not. When checkb.tech evaluates evidence it does the same — borderline cases are named as borderline in the comment, with a committed verdict, and the teacher can overrule it in one click.
Keeping verdicts stable across a batch
- Mark by criterion, not by script. Read every learner's evidence for A.P1 before moving to A.P2. Within-criterion comparison is where consistency lives — script-by-script marking drifts.
- Write the criterion's threshold before you open the first script. One sentence: what does "met" look like for this criterion, in this brief? You will adjust it once and then hold the line.
- Quote the evidence in the comment. Comments that cite the exact sentence keep you honest on script 40 the way you were on script 1.
- Re-verdict the first three scripts at the end. If they now look wrong, your line moved — re-check the middle of the batch where drift hides.
Why this vocabulary survives verification
An internal verifier sampling your decisions asks one question per criterion: "where is the evidence?" A per-criterion record with cited quotes answers it in seconds. This is precisely the shape of checkb.tech's output — every in-scope criterion, a met / partly met / not met verdict, and the cited evidence behind it, in one sortable grid across the whole class.
FAQ
Is "partly met" an official Pearson status?
Formal records record met / not met. Partly met is working language for assessors and tools — it tells the learner and the IV exactly what the gap was, and it is how the evidence checklist stays actionable.
Should feedback differ between partly met and not met?
Yes. Partly met points at the missing element; not met usually means a conversation about the whole approach before the learner resubmits.