Evaluate Question

2. Stem Quality

• The stem is a complete interrogative sentence (not a fill-in-the-blank or true/false)
• The stem does NOT teach the test taker — it does not include information that hints at or narrows the correct answer. Red flag: clauses like "even though X" or "despite Y" that restate the sub-competency.
• The stem uses active voice and third person
• The stem uses "financial institution" — not "bank" or "credit union"
• No trademark symbols (no ®, ™)

3. Response Quality

• Exactly one defensible correct answer — verify against the cited source text
• All three responses are grammatically parallel
• All three responses are roughly equal in length (no response is notably longer, which telegraphs the answer)
• Distractors are plausible but clearly wrong on close reading
• No trivial, absurd, or overlapping distractors
• NOT is in all caps where used for emphasis
• No bold or underline formatting in responses

4. Skill Rating and Cognitive Level

• The skill rating (JSQ vs. SQ) is appropriate for the knowledge tested:
  • JSQ: working knowledge a practitioner develops in ~2 years
  • SQ: deeper expertise requiring ~5 years
• The cognitive level matches the question type:
  • Factual / Recall: tests a specific fact, definition, or rule
  • Procedural / Application: tests applying a rule to a scenario
  • Conditional / Analysis: tests identifying when/under what condition a rule applies
• The rationale explains why this is JSQ vs. SQ knowledge specifically

5. Source Validation

• The source is an approved document (see sources/ directory)
• The citation includes a PDF page number (not a line number from a .txt file)
• The cited passage actually supports the correct answer — confirm by reading the source
• The correct answer cannot be derived from a different, contradictory passage in the same source

6. Answer Position

• Note the answer position (A, B, or C) and flag if this question is part of a set where that position is already overrepresented

Reporting Format

Report findings as:

PASS — if all checks pass with no issues.

ISSUES FOUND — list each failing check with a brief explanation and a suggested fix. Use this structure:

❌ [Check name]: [What is wrong]
   Fix: [Specific suggested correction]

For minor advisory notes (not blocking issues), use:

⚠️  [Check name]: [Advisory note]

If the source citation uses line numbers instead of a page number, offer to convert it.