Socrates Request early access

Launching soonBy ClassHeart

Socrates Evidence-grounded, teacher-approved learning intelligence.

Know what every student truly understands.

Teachers add the evidence they already collect: assignments, assessments and their own observations. Socrates drafts a diagnosis for each student, citing the work it came from. Nothing becomes a conclusion until a teacher accepts it.

Request early access See how the loop works
  • Built for busy teachers
  • Evidence-cited AI
  • Teacher stays in control
Marble bust of Socrates

Draft diagnosis Synthetic example

Draft

Adds numerators and denominators separately instead of finding a common denominator[1][2]

Confidence HighStudent A

AcceptEdit and acceptReject

The loop

How the loop works.

One objective, followed from first evidence to a recorded outcome.

  1. 01 / Objective

    Objective

    Every cycle starts from one curriculum objective: what the student should be able to do.

  2. 02 / Evidence

    Evidence

    Teachers add the evidence they already collect: assignments, assessments and their own observations, including photographed handwritten work.

  3. 03 / Diagnosis

    Cited diagnosis

    Socrates drafts a diagnosis from that student’s own evidence, naming a weakness or misconception and citing the passages it rests on.

  4. 04 / Decision

    Teacher decision

    The teacher accepts, edits and accepts, or rejects the draft; only an approved diagnosis becomes a conclusion.

  5. 05 / Intervention

    Intervention

    An intervention names a teaching strategy, such as a worked example or retrieval practice, together with a plan for reassessment.

  6. 06 / Activity

    Activity

    An accepted intervention can generate a targeted activity aimed at the specific weakness.

  7. 07 / Reassessment

    Reassessment

    The student is reassessed against a baseline captured beforehand, and the teacher confirms, overrides or rejects the result.

  8. 08 / Outcome

    Outcome

    The outcome is recorded as improved, unchanged, deteriorated or uncertain, without claiming the intervention caused it.

Then back to 01 for the next objective

Recorded as learning history

Every step is recorded in the student’s learning history: the Student Intelligence Card. It is append-only, so new entries are added and nothing is overwritten.

The four promises

Evidence first.
Teachers decide.

The four promises Socrates makes about every piece of a teacher’s evidence.

  • 01 / Promise

    Teachers decide

    Only teacher-approved diagnoses become conclusions. AI output is always a draft, and drafts and rejected suggestions never change a student’s record.

    Each draft is accepted, edited and accepted, or rejected. A teacher’s edit is stored alongside the original draft.

  • 02 / Promise

    Every claim is cited

    Each approved claim links to a short, redacted citation and its source record.

    No diagnosis reaches teacher review without at least one valid citation, and every citation is checked against its source.

  • 03 / Promise

    Private by design

    Student names are masked before evidence is analysed by AI. Raw evidence and prompts stay out of operational logs.

    Names from the class list become a stable pseudonym; other personal details become [REDACTED].

  • 04 / Promise

    The whole class in view

    Class-level priorities, plus year and weekly plans, sit alongside each student’s history.

    Class Intelligence shows who needs attention, which reassessments are due and where misconceptions cluster, built only from approved data.

Walkthrough

A teacher’s review, step by step.

Evidence first, then the draft, then the decision and what follows from it.

Synthetic example: no real students, names or schools.

Review queueYear 8 Maths, Set 2Student A

Open actions1 draft diagnosis

Step 1 · Objective

Add fractions with unlike denominators

Step 2 · Evidence first

Cited evidence

The cited passages come first, so the teacher reads the work before the draft.

Homework – Fractions sheet 2

Assignment

Photographed handwritten work

Name (name masked)Student A

[1]Q4: 1/3 + 1/4 = 2/7

[2]Q5: 2/5 + 1/2 = 3/7

Typed note

Teacher observation

[3]Student A explained Q4 as “one plus one on top, three plus four on the bottom”.

The student’s name is replaced with a stable pseudonym before any AI analysis or staff display.

Step 3 · The draft diagnosis

Diagnosis

Written by AI, marked as a draft, and tied to the evidence by citation markers.

Fractions: unlike denominators

Draft
Weakness
Adds numerators and denominators separately instead of finding a common denominator.
Misconception
Treats a fraction as two independent whole numbers.
Confidence
High
Rationale
In Q4 [1] and Q5 [2] the numerators are added together and the denominators are added together. The teacher’s observation [3] describes the same method.

Confidence is the model’s own estimate, shown as High, Medium or Low.

Step 4 · The teacher’s decision

Teacher decision

Three choices, and only the first two change the record.

What each decision does

  • Accept

    The diagnosis becomes the teacher’s conclusion and joins the Student Intelligence Card with its citations. Attainment does not change until a teacher confirms a reassessment.

  • Edit and accept

    The teacher’s wording becomes the conclusion, and the AI original is stored separately alongside it. Attainment does not change until a teacher confirms a reassessment.

  • Reject

    The student’s learning record does not change. The draft stays in the audit trail.

Student Intelligence Card Preview

Student A Year 8 Maths, Set 2

Objective state
EmergingAdd fractions with unlike denominators. Changes only after a confirmed reassessment.
Approved weaknesses and misconceptions
None yet

Audit trail

1 draft awaiting review

Step 6

The Student Intelligence Card

Student A Year 8 Maths, Set 2

Objective state
EmergingDevelopingAdd fractions with unlike denominators, updated by the confirmed reassessment.
Approved misconception
Treats a fraction as two independent whole numbers [1] [2]
Evidence timeline
  • Homework – Fractions sheet 2 [1] [2]
  • Teacher observation [3]
  • Exit quiz – Fractions
Intervention and reassessment
Worked example, then exit quiz: 1 of 6 before, 5 of 6 after. Outcome improved, confirmed by teacher.
Effectiveness
Possibly effective

Append-only. Each entry links back to its redacted citation and source record. In Class Intelligence, the reassessment is no longer due, and the approved misconception can join a class cluster.

Privacy

Private by design.

Masked names, short citations, separate schools.

Before any AI analysis or staff display

Class list name(name masked)Student A

Other personal details(detail masked)[REDACTED]

  • Names are masked before evidence is analysed by AI. Names from the class list become a stable pseudonym and other personal details become [REDACTED], after text extraction and before any AI analysis or staff display.

  • Raw evidence and prompts stay out of operational logs.

  • Citations are short and redacted. A conclusion points to the passage it rests on, not to a whole document.

  • Each school’s data is isolated. Teachers see only their assigned classes.

  • A diagnosis draws only on that student’s own evidence. Another student’s history is never retrieved.

  • Student work is treated as data, never as instructions.

  • School admins stay in control. They can export data, delete a student’s records and set retention periods. Deleted data may remain in backups until those backups expire.

  • No surveillance. No camera, audio, biometric or emotion monitoring.

FAQ

Questions from schools.

Something else? Write to contact-us@classheart.com.

Does Socrates grade students?

No. Socrates does not grade or mark students, and it does not handle discipline or parent messages. It drafts diagnoses from the evidence teachers add, and a teacher decides what becomes a conclusion.

Who uses it?

School staff: teachers, academic reviewers and school admins. There are no student or parent accounts.

What happens to a rejected suggestion?

The student’s learning record does not change. The rejected draft stays in the audit trail, so there is a record of what was suggested and decided.

How are names handled?

Student names from the class list are replaced with a stable pseudonym, and other personal details with [REDACTED]. This happens after text is extracted from the evidence and before any AI analysis or staff display.

Can we see where a conclusion came from?

Yes. Each approved claim links to a short, redacted citation and its source record. A diagnosis cannot reach teacher review without at least one valid citation.

Does it write our plans?

No. Year and weekly plans sit alongside each student’s history and stay drafts until a teacher or school admin approves them. AI is not involved in creating plans.

What evidence can we add?

Assignments, assessments and teacher observations, as PDF, Word, plain text, spreadsheets or photos, including photos of handwritten work. Socrates works in English.

When can we use it, and how do we get early access?

Socrates is launching soon. To request early access, email contact-us@classheart.com.

By ClassHeart

By ClassHeart.

Socrates is the first product from ClassHeart, a company that creates tools to empower teachers and students to get the best results. ClassHeart is an Archon Studios company.

  1. Parent companyArchon Studios
  2. CompanyClassHeart
  3. First productSocrates

Launching soon

Request early access.

Tell us about your school and how you would like to use Socrates.

Request early access

or write to contact-us@classheart.com