# Viva and Oral Defence Evidence Probe Builder

Amo ID: AMO-P-000331
Version: 1.0.0
Public URL: https://amo.ng/prompts/viva-oral-defence-evidence-probe-builder

Summary: Create adaptive oral questions tied to a submitted artefact, with follow-ups that test reasoning, sources, decisions and limitations without treating fluency as proof of authorship.

Use this for: Use this to prepare a fair, artefact-specific viva or oral defence that gathers evidence of reasoning while preserving accessibility and formal assessment authority.

Category: Education
Tool: Claude
Difficulty: Expert
Prompt type: oral assessment design

## Best Use Cases

1. Project Viva Preparation
2. Dissertation Oral Defence
3. Authorship-Supporting Academic Conversation

## Prompt Body

Build an adaptive oral evidence probe for a submitted academic artefact. The questions should test the learner's reasoning and source use, not performance style or confidence.

## Defence context

Submitted artefact with stable section or component references:
{{submitted_artefact}}

Learning outcomes, assessment criteria and purpose of the oral:
{{outcomes_criteria_and_purpose}}

Sources, process evidence and known limitations:
{{sources_process_and_limitations}}

Format, accessibility, integrity and institutional constraints:
{{format_and_policy_constraints}}

## Fairness and evidence rules

- Tie each question to an observable feature of the artefact or an explicit learning outcome.
- Separate artefact evidence, learner response, assessor inference, assumption, conflict, missing information and unresolved uncertainty.
- Do not invent process history, citations, learner identity, authorship evidence or institutional procedure.
- Do not treat confidence, accent, speed, eye contact, memory under pressure or polished fluency as proof of understanding or authorship.
- Provide reasonable alternative ways to demonstrate the same construct when required by the supplied accessibility arrangements.
- An oral defence may contribute evidence; it cannot by itself certify authorship, misconduct, a grade or institutional compliance.
- Give every learner the same common-core questions, equivalent difficulty and comparable time, subject only to documented accommodations. Record and justify any departure.
- Require assessor calibration against the learning outcomes and evidence indicators before use. Follow the supplied notice, representation, recording, feedback and appeal or due-process requirements.

## Probe design

1. Define the oral's legitimate purpose: formative explanation, assessment evidence, project defence or authorship-supporting conversation. Keep investigative and routine assessment purposes distinct.
2. Map artefact features to outcomes: decision, method, calculation, source, design choice, limitation and conclusion.
3. Write neutral common-core opening questions that invite the learner to explain the relationship between choices and evidence. Allocate equivalent time and difficulty before adding artefact-specific branches.
4. For each opening question, create adaptive follow-ups for a well-supported answer, partial answer, contradiction, missing source, changed decision and stated uncertainty.
5. Add transfer probes that vary the context or constraint while testing the same reasoning. Avoid trivia and memory-only questions unless recall is the stated outcome.
6. Add source probes requiring the learner to explain why a source was chosen, what it supports, what it cannot support and how contradictory evidence was handled.
7. Define observable answer indicators and prohibited proxies. State what evidence would remain inconclusive and include assessor-calibration examples.
8. Sequence questions within the available time, include an accessible pause or clarification route, state the required learner notice and due-process steps, and define when to stop or escalate.

## Output contract: Oral Defence Probe Pack

Return:

1. **Purpose and boundary**: oral type, outcomes, authority, accessibility arrangements and decisions not delegated to the tool.
2. **Artefact-to-outcome map**: artefact reference, claimed reasoning, outcome, evidence available and probe priority.
3. **Question route**: question ID, opening question, evidence target, expected indicators, follow-up branches and time budget.
4. **Source and limitation probes**: cited item, claim, question, adequate evidence features and unresolved concern.
5. **Transfer probes**: changed condition, reasoning tested, acceptable approaches and common but non-diagnostic response.
6. **Evidence recording sheet**: question ID, concise learner response, artefact link, observed reasoning, uncertainty and follow-up.
7. **Fairness controls**: prohibited proxies, accessible alternatives, interruption rule, support and escalation contact.
8. **Post-oral handoff**: evidence supported, evidence contradicted, unresolved issue and next authorized review. Do not assign a grade.

## Completion conditions

Complete only when every material question maps to an artefact feature and learning outcome, the common core and branches preserve equivalent difficulty and time, assessors have a calibration basis, notice and due-process controls are recorded, accessibility routes preserve the construct, and the recording sheet separates observation from interpretation. If the artefact or learning outcomes are absent, return only an input-gap record or blank blueprint without candidate questions.

Refuse requests to design an ambush, infer guilt, certify authorship or use protected characteristics and performance style as evidence. Formal integrity, grading and appeal decisions remain with authorized institutional processes.

## Variables to Replace

1. submitted_artefact
2. outcomes_criteria_and_purpose
3. sources_process_and_limitations
4. format_and_policy_constraints

## How to Use

Use Claude with a sanitized artefact and the exact learning outcomes, criteria and oral-assessment rules. Paste or attach only the material the tool is authorized to process. Run the prompt to prepare the question routes, then have the examiner or module leader remove unsuitable probes and confirm accommodations. Record only necessary evidence during the actual oral and follow the institution’s grading or integrity process.

## Example Use Case

A capstone examiner uses the student’s architecture diagram and cited benchmarks to generate neutral questions about trade-offs, source limits and how the design would change under a new privacy constraint, with a written-response alternative for an approved accommodation.

## Tags

1. assessment-integrity
2. authentic-assessment
3. assessment
4. education
5. evidence-assessment
6. accessible-assessments

## Dates

Published: 2026-09-07
Updated: 2026-09-07