No keyword points
Vocabulary only matters when the concept is accurately applied to a scenario fact, consequence and judgement.
TRANSPARENT MMI FEEDBACK
See exactly why an MMI practice score was awarded.
StationReady does not increase a score because an answer sounds polished or contains a preferred term. The report records the criterion, its importance, the decision, the relevant answer evidence and what is missing.
THE SCORING PRINCIPLE
Important reasoning carries more weight than optional polish.
Ten criteria do not mean a student must force ten separate points into each quality. One well-developed reasoning chain may demonstrate several genuinely different behaviours. Core criteria have the greatest influence; supporting and refinement criteria add depth.
The system also applies dependencies and score ceilings. For example, a detailed implementation plan cannot substitute for an absent central issue or position. Unsupported credit is not carried forward simply because the final recommendation sounds sensible.
A staged review, not one general impression.
- 01
Capture the response
A typed answer is saved directly. A spoken answer is transcribed for content review, with limited timing and verbal-habit measures kept separate from content scores.
- 02
Make criterion decisions
Each of the 30 station-relevant criteria receives a demonstrated, not demonstrated or genuinely unassessable decision.
- 03
Verify the evidence
Positive decisions require a short excerpt from the submitted answer. Dependencies, weighting and any exceptional deduction are applied using fixed server rules.
- 04
Generate useful feedback
The report explains the quality scores, shows what raised or limited them, identifies the next practical priority and provides an illustrative high-scoring response.
How a reasonable but incomplete answer is separated from a high-scoring one.
The example below uses selected Equity criteria from a fictional practice answer. A real report shows all ten decisions for each of the three assessed qualities.
SUBMITTED RESPONSE EXCERPT
“Patients without a car would have to rely on infrequent buses, so moving every follow-up to the central hospital could cause missed care. I would keep video appointments for suitable patients but prioritise an in-person visit for patients who cannot use video follow-up.”
| Criterion | Importance | Decision | Evidence and reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Explains a specific unequal effect and the mechanism producing it. | Core | Demonstrated | patients without a car would have to rely on infrequent buses The answer links transport access to the practical risk of missing follow-up. |
| Recognises relevant variation rather than treating a group as uniform. | Core | Not demonstrated | No supporting excerpt identified. Several groups are named, but variation within them is not examined. |
| Compares at least two plausible approaches and their consequences. | Core | Not demonstrated | No supporting excerpt identified. The answer gives one hybrid recommendation without developing an alternative. |
| Links the proposed response to the barrier it is intended to reduce. | Supporting | Demonstrated | prioritise an in-person visit for patients who cannot use video follow-up The proposed allocation directly addresses transport and digital barriers. |
| Defines meaningful participation in the decision. | Supporting | Not demonstrated | No supporting excerpt identified. The response does not explain who should contribute, when or what they can influence. |
| Identifies outcome evidence and a condition for revising the plan. | Refinement | Not demonstrated | No supporting excerpt identified. No measure or review threshold is supplied. |
ILLUSTRATIVE EQUITY SCORE5.4/10
Why this sits in the middle of the scale
The answer demonstrates two important behaviours: a specific access mechanism and a response linked to it. It remains limited because it does not compare the strongest alternative, recognise variation, define participation or explain how outcomes would be reviewed. The short length is not itself penalised; the absent reasoning is simply not credited.
QUALITY CONTROLS
Built to reduce common scoring inflation.
Evidence required
A demonstrated decision normally needs a short exact excerpt from the submitted response.
Independent check
Criterion decisions receive a separate verification pass before server-side weighting produces the report.
Exceptional deductions
Culturally harmful, unsafe or materially misleading reasoning can reduce a score only when a specific excerpt supports the finding.
This remains AI-assisted formative feedback. It may be incomplete or mistaken, and it is not official University marking or a prediction of admission.
Understanding an MMI practice report.
Does mentioning more concepts automatically increase an MMI score?
No. A concept only counts when it is accurate, applied to the scenario and connected to a practical consequence. Repeating vocabulary or listing populations does not create separate evidence.
Why are some criteria worth more than others?
A three-minute answer cannot cover every possible refinement. Core reasoning therefore has greater influence, while supporting and refinement criteria distinguish additional depth. Essential evidence can also limit the maximum score when it is absent.
Can a culturally insensitive or unsafe statement lower the score?
Yes, but deductions are exceptional and must be supported by a specific answer excerpt. Missing an idea is handled as a criterion not demonstrated, not as a penalty.
Is StationReady marking an official UOA score?
No. The result is formative practice guidance from an independent product. It can be incomplete or mistaken and cannot reproduce or predict an admissions decision.
SEE YOUR OWN EVIDENCE
Start the free stationComplete one free station and review the full rubric.
Your report stays in your private dashboard with the transcript, three quality scores, criterion decisions and next improvement priority.