# [Project Title] — Tutor Observation Document

> Template from *The Practitioner* (Phil Rust, 2026) — Appendix B: Transparent AI Use in Education
> mantleinstitute.com/practitioner/templates

---

## AI Completeness Sweep

*Run this section before your personal review. Submit the student's lineage document to an
AI assistant with the completeness prompt below. Record the model used and paste the response
into the table.*

**Date:** [date]
**Model used:** [model name and version]

**Completeness prompt used:**

> "You are reviewing a student's AI-assisted research lineage document. Assess it against
> the following criteria and log your findings in the structured format below.
>
> Criteria:
> 1. Is an original idea present and clearly the student's own?
> 2. Are research prompts specific and well-formed, or vague and generic?
> 3. Are references listed as actually reviewed, not just AI-surfaced?
> 4. Do personal annotations reflect genuine reading or just AI summary?
> 5. Is the refined idea meaningfully different from the original? Is the change explained?
> 6. Does the journey narrative reflect genuine thinking, or is it a procedural summary?
> 7. Is the process meta-debate substantive, or does the student accept all AI criticism
>    without evaluation?
>
> For each criterion, record: Present / Thin / Absent, with one sentence of explanation.
> Flag anything that requires personal tutor attention."

### AI Sweep Results

| Criterion | Rating | Notes |
|-----------|--------|-------|
| Original idea | Present / Thin / Absent | [explanation] |
| Research prompts | Present / Thin / Absent | [explanation] |
| References reviewed | Present / Thin / Absent | [explanation] |
| Personal annotations | Present / Thin / Absent | [explanation] |
| Refined idea | Present / Thin / Absent | [explanation] |
| Journey narrative | Present / Thin / Absent | [explanation] |
| Process meta-debate | Present / Thin / Absent | [explanation] |

### AI Flags for Tutor Attention

[Items the AI identified as requiring personal review]

---

## Tutor Personal Review

*Read the student's lineage document and the AI sweep above. Validate the AI's observations,
amend anything that does not match your reading, and add feedback the AI did not surface.*

**Date:** [date]

### Validated AI Feedback

[Which AI observations you confirm on personal reading — cite the criterion number]

### Amended AI Feedback

[Where your reading differs from the AI sweep — what the AI missed or over-stated, and why]

### Additional Tutor Observations

[Feedback that the AI did not surface — this is where professional pedagogical judgement
operates. Quality, intellectual honesty, and development of thinking over time.]

---

## Summary

*Ask your AI to generate a brief summary of the consolidated feedback from your completed
review above. Validate or amend before including here.*

**AI-generated summary prompt:**

> "Based on the tutor review notes above, generate a brief, constructive summary of the
> feedback for the student. Keep it to three to five sentences. Highlight the strongest
> aspect of the work, the most important area for improvement, and the overall assessment
> of the process quality."

[AI-generated summary — reviewed and validated by tutor]

---

## Gate Decision

**Decision:** [ ] Proceed to Phase 2     [ ] Return for revision

**If returning for revision:**

Specific areas to address before resubmission:

1. [Area 1 — reference the relevant criterion and provide specific guidance]
2. [Area 2 — if applicable]
3. [Area 3 — if applicable]

When resubmitting, the student should include a new section in their lineage document titled
"Response to Tutor Feedback" documenting what changed in response to this observation and why.

---

*Document version: [date]*
*Tutor: [name]*
*Student: [name]*