MS Science — the five courses, what is ready

Where things stand, 16 Oct 2026

49 of 75 planned topics are authored across the five courses; 49 are closed on keys (every answer agreed by readers who did not write them). 48 videos have passed and been delivered.

Reviewing? Read James's criteria below, then open a course's review page. Leave a note under any row or topic here; name yourself on the Notes tab and press Send.

James's review criteria

Is this content better than the current alternative students have?

Lessons are good enough if they are 8/10 on the following criteria.

Gut check questions

Are we confident that this is better than the alternative?
Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson?

Some criteria to think about

Clear and concise language
Physics accuracy
No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception)
Appropriate questions
Initial testing
Expansion into harder questions (no exam)
The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson

His words, from his criteria document (7 Oct 2026). "Physics accuracy" is his wording from the physics tab; read it as the accuracy of the subject you are reviewing.

MS Life Science

Course and banks closed on keys; 6 items on your list (16 Oct, from the Build Tower)

Topics: 13 of 13 topics authored · 13 closed on keys · 13 with a question bank
Videos: 24 videos passed and delivered (Topic 1, Topic 2, Topic 3, Topic 5, Topic 7, Topic 9, Topic 12)

Review page Every script, one page Build Tower page up

For James: 6 things on your list for this course · first one

the list

Tap card 21 on the one page, flat drawings everywhere or realistic pictures for living things: https://ms-life-science-review.pages.dev (changes the style line of every batch not yet rendered; 1 min).
Tap card 9, protect only the coining and the rule or keep editing every line (decides how the remaining batches are briefed; 2 min).
Tap cards 10 to 20, the five new topics' decisions and the familiar-animal question (releases their final wording; 10 min).
Read Topics 4, 6, 8, 10 and 13 on the scripts page and send notes: https://ms-life-science-review.pages.dev/review/SCRIPTS.html (releases their video batches; 30 to 40 min).
When told the five sample videos have passed, watch them on the local sample page and give the go or no-go on the rest of the course's videos (10 min).
The MS Science hub page is being built today; its link lands here when live.

The topics, one line each

	Topic	State	Bank	Videos
Topic 1	Alive, and built from cells	Closed on keys	yes	8	closed 12 Oct
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 2	Inside the cell	Closed on keys	yes	2	closed 13 Oct
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 3	How plants make food	Closed on keys	yes	2	closed 13 Oct
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 4	Releasing energy from food	Closed on keys	yes	—	closed 15 Oct
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 5	Sorting living things: the kingdoms	Closed on keys	yes	4	closed 14 Oct
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 6	From kingdom to species	Closed on keys	yes	—	closed 15 Oct
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 7	Ecosystems and food webs	Closed on keys	yes	3	closed 13 Oct
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 8	Energy flows, matter cycles, and living things interact	Closed on keys	yes	—	closed 15 Oct
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 9	Traits and how living things reproduce	Closed on keys	yes	1	closed 14 Oct
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 10	Genes, DNA and chromosomes	Closed on keys	yes	—	closed 15 Oct
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 11	Dominant, recessive and the Punnett square	Closed on keys	yes	—	closed 13 Oct
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 12	Adaptation and natural selection	Closed on keys	yes	4	closed 14 Oct
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 13	Evidence for change, and change when the environment changes	Closed on keys	yes	—	closed 15 Oct
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document

James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these

Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson?

Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson

His criteria document

MS Chemistry

41 videos rendered for 5 topics; 23 live; 30 edits queued (16 Oct, from the Build Tower)

Topics: 14 of 14 topics authored · 14 closed on keys · 14 with a question bank
Videos: 23 videos passed and delivered (Topic 1, Topic 2, Topic 3, Topic 4, Topic 5, Topic 7)

Review page Videos Build Tower page up

For James: 4 things on your list for this course · first one

the list

Watch the eleven new-topic videos and say whether the style holds: https://ms-chem.pages.dev/videos/ (releases nothing by itself; about 20 minutes).
Decide the render queue: pause or throttle HS Chemistry and MS Physics fresh renders until MS Chemistry's 30 edits drain, or leave it (one word to me; releases the 30 held videos onto the page within a day).
Tap the scripts page for Topics 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14: https://ms-chem.pages.dev/review/scripts/ (releases 56 videos to the pipeline; about 10 minutes a topic).
Backlog tab, when quiet: eleven small cards, including the 39 former practice items I recommend dropping: https://ms-chem.pages.dev/review/scripts/backlog (releases nothing; 10 minutes). Nothing blocks the build.

The topics, one line each

	Topic	State	Bank	Videos
Topic 1	Particles and the three states of matter	Closed on keys	yes	12	closed 25 Sep
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 2	Changing state	Closed on keys	yes	4	closed 25 Sep
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 3	Physical properties	Closed on keys	yes	2	closed 25 Sep
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 4	Density	Closed on keys	yes	1	closed 25 Sep
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 5	Pure substances and mixtures	Closed on keys	yes	2	closed 25 Sep
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 6	Solutions and separating mixtures	Closed on keys	yes	—	closed 25 Sep
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 7	Atoms, elements, molecules and compounds	Closed on keys	yes	2	closed 25 Sep
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 8	Inside the atom	Closed on keys	yes	—	closed 25 Sep
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 9	The periodic table	Closed on keys	yes	—	closed 25 Sep
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 10	Chemical formulas	Closed on keys	yes	—	closed 25 Sep
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 11	Physical and chemical change	Closed on keys	yes	—	closed 25 Sep
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 12	Chemical reactions and conservation of mass	Closed on keys	yes	—	closed 25 Sep
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 13	Water's special properties	Closed on keys	yes	—	closed 25 Sep
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 14	Acids and bases	Closed on keys	yes	—	closed 26 Sep
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document

James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these

Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson?

His criteria document

MS Physics

15 of 20 topics closed; 42 videos wait on card 8 (16 Oct, from the Build Tower)

Topics: 16 of 20 topics authored · 16 closed on keys · 16 with a question bank
Videos: 1 video passed and delivered (Topic 2)

Review page Every script, one page Build Tower page up

For James: 6 things on your list for this course · first one

the list

Card 8 — pick the lever for the render cap: edit-first window each sweep (recommended), pause HS between units, or leave it. https://ms-physics-review.pages.dev/#card-8 — releases 42 held videos (2 minutes).
Read Topics 9 to 12, 14, 16 and 19 and tap Fine / Change this under each lesson: https://ms-physics-review.pages.dev/review/SCRIPTS.html — Topics 2, 6, 7, 8, 10, 14 and 16 are the gated ones; your taps release their videos (about 15 minutes per topic).
Watch Topic 2's summary video at the top of its block on the same page (2 minutes).
Card 7 — where the mass-versus-weight bridge goes, Topic 11 recommended: https://ms-physics-review.pages.dev/#card-7 (1 minute).
Card 3 — compass words on Topic 3's maps: https://ms-physics-review.pages.dev/#card-3 (1 minute).
The four proposed checks: https://ms-physics-review.pages.dev/#proposed-checks (3 minutes). Nothing on this list blocks authoring; item 1 blocks the videos.

The topics, one line each

	Topic	State	Bank	Videos
Topic 1	Where something is, and whether it moved	Closed on keys	yes	—	closed 14 Oct
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 2	Speed: how fast something moves	Closed on keys	yes	1	closed 14 Oct
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 3	Velocity and acceleration	Closed on keys	yes	—	closed 14 Oct
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 4	Drawing and reading a distance-time graph	Closed on keys	yes	—	closed 14 Oct
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 5	What the shape of a distance-time graph tells you	Closed on keys	yes	—	closed 15 Oct
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 6	What a force is and what it does	Closed on keys	yes	—	closed 14 Oct
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 7	Spotting the forces on an object	Closed on keys	yes	—	closed 15 Oct
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 8	Adding forces: the net force	Closed on keys	yes	—	closed 15 Oct
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 9	Balanced forces and motion (Newton's first law)	Closed on keys	yes	—	closed 17 Oct
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 10	Force pairs (Newton's third law)	Closed on keys	yes	—	closed 18 Oct
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 11	Force, mass and acceleration (Newton's second law)	Closed on keys	yes	—	closed 18 Oct
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 12	Newton's three laws in one system	Closed on keys	yes	—	closed 19 Oct
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 13	Design a safer collision	Closed on keys	yes	—	closed 16 Oct
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 14	Kinetic and potential energy	Closed on keys	yes	—	closed 16 Oct
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 15		Not yet	not yet	—
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 16	Temperature, heat and thermal equilibrium	Closed on keys	yes	—	closed 16 Oct
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 17		Not yet	not yet	—
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 18		Not yet	not yet	—
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 19	Waves carry energy	Closed on keys	yes	—	closed 17 Oct
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 20		Not yet	not yet	—
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document

James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these

Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson?

His criteria document

MS Earth and Space

3 sample topics closed on keys; waiting on your read (16 Oct, from the Build Tower)

Topics: 3 of 21 topics authored · 3 closed on keys · 3 with a question bank
Videos: no videos delivered yet

Review page Every script, one page Build Tower page up

For James: 4 things on your list for this course · first one

the list

Read the three sample topics' scripts and tap Fine or Change this under each lesson: https://ms-earth-space-review.pages.dev/review/SCRIPTS.html (releases the rest of the course to author; about 30 minutes).
Tap the four architecture cards — the course's name and shape, the anchor forms, the five hosted reasoning atoms, the three sample topics: https://ms-earth-space-review.pages.dev/review/ARCHITECTURE.html (confirms the plan the samples were built on; about 5 minutes).
Three spoken-line points the reviewers left for you (bare pronouns in two Topic 2 beats; 'hemisphere' coined with no plain word first in Topic
are in each topic's ADJUDICATION record in the repo; say the word and they are changed (about 2 minutes). Nothing blocks the build.

The topics, one line each

	Topic	State	Bank	Videos
Topic 1		Not yet	not yet	—
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 2	The rock cycle	Closed on keys	yes	—	closed 15 Oct
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 3		Not yet	not yet	—
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 4		Not yet	not yet	—
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 5		Not yet	not yet	—
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 6		Not yet	not yet	—
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 7		Not yet	not yet	—
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 8		Not yet	not yet	—
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 9	weather or climate, and what sets a climate	Closed on keys	yes	—	closed 15 Oct
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 10		Not yet	not yet	—
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 11		Not yet	not yet	—
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 12		Not yet	not yet	—
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 13	Earth's spin and Earth's tilt: day, night and the seasons	Closed on keys	yes	—	closed 15 Oct
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 14		Not yet	not yet	—
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 15		Not yet	not yet	—
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 16		Not yet	not yet	—
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 17		Not yet	not yet	—
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 18		Not yet	not yet	—
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 19		Not yet	not yet	—
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 20		Not yet	not yet	—
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 21		Not yet	not yet	—
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document

James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these

Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson?

His criteria document

MS Scientific Reasoning

3 samples closed on keys; your read and 10 taps next (16 Oct, from the Build Tower)

Topics: 3 of 7 topics authored · 3 closed on keys · 3 with a question bank
Videos: no videos delivered yet

Review page Every script, one page Build Tower page up

For James: 3 things on your list for this course · first one

the list

Read the three sample topics on the scripts page and tap Fine or Change this under each lesson: https://ms-scientific-reasoning-review.pages.dev/review/SCRIPTS.html (about 20 minutes; your read releases Topics 1, 3, 5 and 7).
Tap the six architecture cards: https://ms-scientific-reasoning-review.pages.dev/review/ARCHITECTURE.html (the course's name; three-subject scenes; the anchor forms; keep all 36 atoms here; the three samples; one missing atom on what a scientific law is; about 5 minutes; defaults in force).
Tap the four small questions: https://ms-scientific-reasoning-review.pages.dev/review/QUESTIONS.html (two Grade 4 coined lines meeting this course; two proposed rules from the blind reads; about 3 minutes; defaults in force). Nothing blocks the build; no video renders until 1 is done.

The topics, one line each

	Topic	State	Bank	Videos
Topic 1		Not yet	not yet	—
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 2	The thing you change, the thing you measure, the things you keep the same	Closed on keys	yes	—	closed 16 Oct
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 3		Not yet	not yet	—
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 4	One result is not enough	Closed on keys	yes	—	closed 16 Oct
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 5		Not yet	not yet	—
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 6	Together is not the same as caused	Closed on keys	yes	—	closed 16 Oct
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document
Topic 7		Not yet	not yet	—
James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson? Think about: Clear and concise language · Physics accuracy · No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception) · Appropriate questions · Initial testing · Expansion into harder questions (no exam) · The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson His criteria document

James's criteria: good enough = 8/10 on these

Gut check: Are we confident that this is better than the alternative? · Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson?

His criteria document

What the words mean: authored = the topic's lessons exist as scripts and questions; closed on keys = a non-author adjudication record exists, so every answer key has been agreed by blind readers; bank = the end-of-topic test bank file exists; videos = .mp4 files that passed and were delivered to the course's video folder (held renders and previous takes do not count). Every number is read from the course folders when this page is built.

James's review criteria

Is this content better than the current alternative students have?

Lessons are good enough if they are 8/10 on the following criteria.

Gut check questions

Are we confident that this is better than the alternative?
Are we confident that a student would benefit from taking this lesson?

Some criteria to think about

Clear and concise language
Physics accuracy
No "clangers" (content that causes a problematic misconception)
Appropriate questions
Initial testing
Expansion into harder questions (no exam)
The tasks should use similar language to that of the lesson

His words, from his criteria document (7 Oct 2026). "Physics accuracy" is his wording from the physics tab; read it as the accuracy of the subject you are reviewing.

Your notes

Who are you? Required before Send. Remembered in this browser.

If Send ever fails, the box below holds everything: copy it and send it to James by email or message.

Built 16 Oct 2026 from the five course folders and the Build Tower status files. The shape of this page is the vault's review-page rule; its builder is MS Science Hub/build_hub.py.