AI vs teacher
Teacher · green pen
48/80
0 written notes
Evalezy · red pen
40/80
12 written notes
They disagreed on 10 of 32 questions:
Page by page
Both copies are the same scan, so every difference you see is a difference in checking.
Page 1. Section A, one-mark answers. Both crossed Q3. They split on Q6: the student wrote −19/7, and Evalezy missed the minus sign.
What Evalezy caught
Right final answers with wrong working: easy to tick past at copy 40. Evalezy checks every line against the scheme and says what went wrong.
Q30 · page 7 · student wrote A = 7, B = 6; check: 37 + 25 = 65
Evalezy caught it
The student’s own check says 37 + 25 = 65. It is 62. The teacher ticked it; Evalezy crossed it and wrote the right sum. The answer was right, so the slip cost half a mark.
Q28 · page 5 · student wrote 625t⁴/2, via × 25/2 t⁻⁸
Evalezy caught it
Dividing by (2/25)t⁻⁸, the student wrote × 25/2 t⁻⁸ where it should be t⁸. The final answer is right; the working isn’t. The teacher gave full marks, Evalezy took half a mark and said why. (Evalezy also crossed one correct line, 5⁻³ = 1/125, by reading the 5 as a 6.)
What the teacher caught
A 7 read as a 1, a minus sign too small to see, a number the student had crossed out. The teacher read the handwriting correctly every time. These are the marks a teacher fixes in review before anything is released.
Q18 · page 2 · student wrote (c) ₹720
Teacher was right
The student chose (c), the right option. Evalezy read ₹720 as ₹120 and marked it wrong, while its own note names (c) as correct.
Q6 · page 1 · student wrote (b) −19/7
Teacher was right
The student chose (b) and did write the minus sign. Evalezy missed the small minus and marked a right answer wrong.
Q25 · page 4 · student wrote 7/30
Teacher was right
The boxed answer is 7/30, which is right. Evalezy read the 7 as a 1, took a mark for a “missing” factor, and its note was cut off mid-sentence.
Q26 · page 4 · student wrote 350 km (corrected from 360)
Teacher was right
The student struck out 360 and wrote 350 above it. Evalezy read the crossed-out number and gave 0/2, while naming 350 km as the right answer.
Q29 · page 6 · student wrote x = 5, y = 5 (both boxed)
Teacher was right
Both values are boxed on the page. Evalezy took half a mark for not stating them.
Judgement calls
Q27 · page 5 · student wrote 900 = 30²
Judgement call
The answer is right. Evalezy wanted the student to show that 900 divides by 6, 9 and 15; the teacher didn’t. A strictness call.
Q32 · page 7 · student wrote Part (i) only
Judgement call
Both took marks for the missing part (ii); they differ by half a mark. Evalezy’s note for this question was printed at the foot of page 4 by mistake.
Q22 · page 3 · student wrote 4a²/b²
Judgement call
Evalezy took half a mark for unclear exponent steps; the teacher gave full marks. Settling who is right needs the question paper, which we don’t have.
| Q | Student wrote | Teacher | Evalezy | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q6 | (b) −19/7 | 1/1 | 0/1: “option b with minus sign” | Teacher was right |
| Q18 | (c) ₹720 | 1/1 | 0/1: “Correct: (c) ₹720” | Teacher was right |
| Q22 | 4a²/b² | 2/2 | 1.5/2: “Steps not shown clearly” | Judgement call |
| Q25 | 7/30 | 2/2 | 1/2: “Common factor 7/5 missed” | Teacher was right |
| Q26 | 350 km (corrected from 360) | 2/2 | 0/2: “Correct answer: 350 km” | Teacher was right |
| Q27 | 900 = 30² | 3/3 | 2.5/3: “Divisibility of 900 by 6, 9, 15 not verified” | Judgement call |
| Q28 | 625t⁴/2, via × 25/2 t⁻⁸ | 3/3 | 2.5/3: exponent error and a 2/26 slip | Evalezy caught it |
| Q29 | x = 5, y = 5 (both boxed) | 3/3 | 2.5/3: “Final values not stated” | Teacher was right |
| Q30 | A = 7, B = 6; check: 37 + 25 = 65 | 3/3, check ticked | 2.5/3: “Check wrong: 37+25 = 62, not 65” | Evalezy caught it |
| Q32 | Part (i) only | 2/3 | 1.5/3: “Part (ii) not attempted” | Judgement call |
Totals: teacher 48/80, Evalezy 40/80. Every other question was marked the same by both. Checked by hand against the student’s working on 2 October 2026; there was no question paper, so items that depend on it are judgement calls.
The point
Evalezy is more thorough about working, and writes a reason beside every lost mark. A teacher reads handwriting better. So Evalezy does the first check, a teacher reviews it, and nothing reaches students until the teacher releases.
Yes. A teacher checked this copy by hand. We ran the same scan through Evalezy and put the two side by side, unedited. We have left Evalezy’s mistakes in.
Two deductions are fair (Q30 and Q28: slips the teacher ticked). Five are Evalezy misreading handwriting (Q6, Q18, Q25, Q26, Q29): a 7 read as a 1, a small minus sign, a crossed-out number. The rest are half-mark judgement calls. A teacher reviewing Evalezy’s marks fixes those five in a few clicks.
Not on its own, and we don’t claim it is. On this copy Evalezy was more thorough about working and wrote a reason for every lost mark; the teacher read handwriting better. Together they get it right, which is how Evalezy is built: AI first check, teacher review, then release.
On the review screen: every answer as Evalezy read it, the marks, the reason and the criteria. A teacher changes any mark, and that edit is never overwritten. Students see nothing until the teacher releases.
Book a 20-minute demo. Bring a question paper and a few scanned answer sheets, and watch Evalezy check them in red pen.