Explain coursework at the help level the teacher of record sets, ground each explanation in the adopted materials, and treat a student's accommodations as a limit the agent cannot move.
Ingest the adopted materials, the scope and sequence and the accommodations record from supported LMS.
02
Normalise each passage and carry it forward with the approved source it came from.
Reason
03
Explain the concept at the help level the teacher configured for that assignment.
04
Apply the standards, the adopted scope and sequence and the integrity ceiling the institution set.
05
Read the accommodations on file as a constraint, and raise a request to the case manager rather than varying one.
Decide
06
Render mathematics, diagrams and code as text a screen reader can speak, not as unlabelled images.
07
Route a contested claim, an integrity question or an accommodation request to the teacher of record.
Out
08
Retain the session and the work it produced for the school, and put none of it to training, profiling or advertising.
09
Execute write actions only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.
→Product statement
The agent explains and practises; the teacher of record owns what is taught and what it is worth, and the school keeps direct control of the records a session creates.
Example workflow
One session, prompt to hand-off
AgentHuman
1Student prompt receivedLMS assignment, courseware activity or a tutoring session
2Prior work assembledAdopted materials, the standard in play and the accommodations on file, each with its source
3Explanation draftedWorked explanation, practice items, the help level applied and confidence
4Scope checks appliedSource checks, standard and scope rules, help-ceiling and accommodation checks and confidence threshold
No human action required
The first four stages run unaided, and nothing is graded at any of them — the agent is explaining, and the teacher's lane opens at the confidence gate.
5DecisionSplits at the scope gate
Inside the scope
Goes to the student at the configured help level.
Outside the scope
Waits for the teacher of record first.
Teacher review
The explanation is held with its cited source, its flags and the confidence.
Approve · Edit · Send to the teacher
Approved — released to the student▼
6Courseware and dashboards updatedOnly where write access and approval policy allow it
7Session evaluatedEdit distance, off-standard rates, help-ceiling breaches and corrections after the fact
Reframings
Every teacher edit is counted in the evaluation.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items
Changing an instructional accommodation in an individualised plan.
Assigning or recording a grade or mastery determination of record.
Deciding whether help crossed into academic misconduct.
Approving instructional content outside the adopted materials.
Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided
✓Generate practice items inside the teacher's standard for the named owner.
✓Explain a concept at the configured help level.
✓Give formative feedback on a draft that nothing.
✓Log time on task and item-level performance to the teacher's.
Any write happens inside the boundaries agreed at implementation, never ahead of the teacher.
Altering the scope, the sequence or the pacing of the course.
Determining that a student needs evaluation for a disability.
Telling a parent that a student is struggling, as an assessment.
Resolving a conflict between the tutor's answer and the teacher's.
Example output
One explanation, annotated
Everything the agent explains is attached to the material it was drawn from.
Tutoring output · single sessionIllustrative example
Assignment
Explanation line
Help level
Source of record
Confidence
Accommodation
Quadratics practice
Complete the square first, then read the vertex off the result
Hint only
Adopted textbook
91%
Extended time honoured
As receivedTaken from the adopted textbook and the plan on file — nothing on this side is written by the agent.
Sources usedAdopted textbook sectionCourse standardAccommodations record
Why this help levelThe teacher set hints for this assignment and a person still decides.
ActionApproveEditSend to the teacher
What the score decidesBelow the configured threshold the explanation waits for the teacher of record before.
Value
Where AI adds value
The same four claims, placed at the point in the workflow where each one applies.
Where the value landsValue 01 – 04
Every sessionFrom the student
03Explaining
Explain from approved materials
Draw on the adopted materials, the standard in play and the teacher's configured help ceiling.
01Approved path
Explain it a second way
A second explanation arrives without waiting for the next class.
02Human review
Send the rest to the teacher
Contested claims, integrity questions and accommodation requests are flagged and routed to the teacher of record.
04Build an evidence trail
The session, its prompts and the work produced stay attached to the student.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
Integration availability depends on the client's existing systems and API access.
Agent controls
Six layers between the model and the lesson
Every layer wraps the next. What none of them catches is in the map below.
L6 · Outermost — last line of defenceInward → L1 · closest to the model
L6Rollback / safe modePull the tutor back to practice without feedback when evaluation or production signals degrade.Roll back
L5Version monitoringTrack model, prompt, help-ceiling and materials-configuration changes.Track
L4TraceabilityRecord the session, the source cited, the help level given and the teacher's edits.Record
L3Teacher reviewHold explanations for the teacher of record; it governs release, not whether a released explanation is right.Gate
L2Policy guardrailsTest explanations against the adopted materials, the help ceiling and the accommodations on file; a failure returns the explanation.Restrict
L1Confidence thresholdsRoute low-confidence explanations to the teacher before the student sees them.Require review
Model coreExplanation produced — worked steps, practice items, the help level applied and confidence
L1 – L2Test whether an explanation may stand
L3Puts the release in a teacher's hands
L4 – L5Hold the session the feedback rests on
L6Falls back to practice without feedback when signals slip
How Nestack evaluates it
Evaluate the tutoring workflow — not only the explanation that came back.
Coverage runs the whole depth of the workflow, and every layer is cut by slice.
Surface — the explanation the student reads
Depth of coverage ▼
E1Final-output evaluationWas the explanation correct and on the adopted method?
E2Step-level evaluationDid the agent use the right materials, standard and accommodations record?
E3Tool evaluationDid it read the right roster record and write nothing to the gradebook?
E4Confidence calibrationDo low-confidence explanations actually attract more teacher edits?
E5Slice evaluationHow does performance change across specific student cohorts?
E6Business outcomeHow many explanations needed a teacher edit or a correction after the fact?
Floor — what the learner actually understands
Failure modes
Where each failure originates in the agent
Seven ways a session goes wrong, by stage.
Agent lifecycleDirection of processing →
01 · Retrieval1 mode
TU-03
Method outside the adopted text
A general-web procedure replaces the one the class was taught.
Stage gathersAdopted materials, standards, with the source each came from
02 · Reasoning2 modes
TU-04
Mastery read from a short streak
Scaffolding a plan requires is withdrawn after a few right answers.
TU-06
Graded work treated as practice
A submitted item is answered in full, past the help ceiling.
Stage proposesThe explanation, the help level applied and confidence
03 · Tool / write2 modes
TU-02
Feedback posted to the gradebook
A comment lands in a field no teacher has read.
TU-05
Student work sent onward
An essay reaches a service outside the school-official agreement.
Stage writesOnly where write access and approval policy allow it
04 · Output1 mode
TU-01
Contested claim asserted
A disputed point is taught as settled fact.
Stage returnsThe explanation the student learns from
05 · Change / Version1 mode
TU-07
Silent help-level regression
A model update moves the default from hint-first to solution-first.
Stage tracksModel, prompt, help ceiling and materials config
Sev-1 · acts outside the boundarySev-2 · a wrong explanation reaches a studentSev-3 · source degrades
Break the session error rate down by cohort and it names itself Nestack reports it by slice rather than in aggregate The cohorts that carry it are named, not averaged away..
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
Students with plan accommodations
4.2%
3.5×
Review
English learners and dialect writers
3.6%
3.0×
Review
Elementary read-aloud sessions
1.8%
1.5×
Watch
Secondary STEM practice
0.6%
0.5×
Normal
Bar: error-rate lift vs. the all-session baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
Each miss becomes a case
The loop shuts when the miss is a case in the suite, not when someone has explained it.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Error rate rises in one student cohort.
02Diagnose
The transcript, the cited passage and the help-ceiling setting are laid against each other until one accounts for it.
03Improve
Whatever changes ships against a version, with the sessions that prompted it attached.
04Verify
Nothing ships until the affected cases pass a second time.
05Learn
The suite grows by one case; so does the instructional guardrail set.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. Detection next time runs against a longer suite than this one.
Typical build scope
Twelve workstreams across six weeks
The build scope read against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — discovery, materials, tutoring workflow, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Tutoring workflow discovery and boundary definition.
02LMS and courseware source assessment.
03Standards, adopted-materials and help-ceiling mapping.
04Materials ingestion and passage normalisation.
05Explanation logic and source binding.
06Confidence scoring and escalation routing.
07Teacher review workflow.
08LMS and courseware integration.
09Explanation regression cases.
10Guardrails and scope controls.
11Session-trail instrumentation.
12Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover.
12 workstreams · 6 weeks · bar shows the weeks a workstream is active — several run in parallelFinal scope and sequence confirmed in discovery
Engagement tiers
What each tier includes
Rows are the capabilities named in each tier's scope. Higher tiers include everything below them.
Capability✓ in scope · — not at this tierPilotOne course, one teacherProductionProduction coursewareAdvancedMultiple schools / subjects
Introduced at Pilot
Explaining from your materials✓✓✓
Teacher review✓✓✓
Explanation-quality baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by subject—✓✓
Review workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved dashboard write-back—✓✓
Courseware integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-district materials sets——✓
Multi-stage teacher approvals——✓
High session volume——✓
Enterprise instruction controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, transaction volume, approval controls and deployment requirements.
Separate from buildBuild pricing is separate from recurring Agent Care, which covers managed monitoring, evaluations, incidents and verified improvements after launch.
What we need from you
What you bring, and what we build with it
Each input maps to a piece of build scope and a week in the delivery timeline.
You bringWe build with it
01Your adopted materials and scope and sequence→Materials ingestion and passage mappingWeek 1
02Representative tutoring sessions→Explanation baseline, source binding and method extractionWeek 2
03Your help ceiling for each assignment type→Help-ceiling, standards and scope mappingWeek 1
04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports→LMS, courseware and rostering assessment, then integration setupWeek 2
05Explanations that went wrong→Explanation cases and failure-mode testingWeek 4
06Where help stops and doing the work begins→Confidence scoring, escalation routing, guardrails and review controlsWeek 3
07Named teachers of record to review held work→Teacher review workflow, then pilot and production validationWeeks 5–6
Nothing else is requiredDeployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.
Delivery timeline
Four phases across six weeks
The bands follow real work rather than a plan, so evaluation and pilot genuinely share the fifth week.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Tutoring workflow discovery, scope mapping and the automation boundaryW2Materials integration and the explanation baselineW3Tutoring workflow, confidence logic and escalation controlsW4Evaluation suite, accessible-notation checks and cohort error-rate testingW5Courseware integration, a pilot subject and targeted correctionsW6A term of tutoring reviewed by the teacher of record, then handover
Reading the bandA band covers the weeks its work is named in, and nothing else. The doubled fifth week is real.
At the end of W6Once the term validates, Agent Care owns the running agent.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Education AI agent
Build a tutoring agent around your teacher of record.
Show us your adopted materials, your standards and what counts as acceptable help. If your integrity line moves by assignment, we will configure it that way, set the automation boundary and name what stays with the teacher.
