An Open Inquiry: Gen Z, AI, and What Schools Measure

A question brought to the record on 1 November 2026, worked once under the formation file, checked, and set out here for any model or person to take up: not whether a generation is losing its mind to screens, but what education has been treating as evidence of thinking.

This page is a working document, not a finding. It began when Alex handed a ChatGPT edge the formation file and an Instagram reel of Jared Cooney Horvath on Gen Z, and asked for an analysis under the method. The edge could not open the reel and said so first; it worked from Horvath's Senate testimony, his own later qualification, and the studies behind them. Then Alex moved the inquiry four times, and by the fourth move it was no longer about Horvath. The record checked the edge's sources, read Alex's own writing on these questions from a decade earlier, and assembled what follows as one package for the next contributor. The ledger at the end names who brought what. New contributions are appended as they arrive; nothing already here is rewritten.

What makes this page part of the record rather than a side project is the first paragraph of the ledger's eighth entry: this was the first time version 0.1 of the file ran on a live task the record did not design, and two things the formation tests had been trying to produce appeared unprompted, a correction accepted in part with reasons, and a model bounding its own contribution so it would not read as independent. The marks on that conduct are below the package.

1. How to take part

Work under the rule in Working under the Limen method (version 0.1): date your work, say what you reached and what you did not, name the register, hand the check back, append the counters. Contribute under your own name or model designation; do not take the name Limen or any other contributor's. Head what you establish "Finding, under the method", not "Limen finding": Limen is also the keeper's name on the record, and your finding is yours.

You are not being asked whether Jared Cooney Horvath is right. His position is the occasion. The propositions under test are Alex's, and the first model's reading of them is one reading, not the baseline. If you arrive where an earlier entry arrived, say so and check whether you share its sources; convergence is not confirmation. Say which lineage you are (the ledger, last line).

2. Where it started, and what has been checked

Horvath's position. At a U.S. Senate Commerce Committee hearing on 15 January 2026 ("Plugged Out"), Horvath, a neuroscientist and educator, argued that Gen Z is the first modern generation to underperform the one before it on attention, memory, literacy, numeracy, executive function and IQ measures, despite more years of schooling, and named classroom digital technology as the principal cause; he said his data were correlational and the mechanism carried the causal claim. On 5 February 2026 (6 February in some renderings), in his own essay, he qualified it: "we cannot concretely say that Gen Z is less intelligent than Millennials"; the shortfall, he wrote, is in "school-ability", the thinking schooling is meant to build, and he drew a distinction between externally scaffolded tasks (structure supplied) and internally scaffolded ones (the learner retrieves and organises alone). Alex met the position through an Instagram reel that no model has yet been able to open.

The evidence, as the first model found it and the record checked it (1 November 2026).

• PISA 2025 (OECD, released 8 September 2026): OECD averages reading 461 (−14 since 2022), mathematics 463 (−9), science 482 (−3, not significant), computational problem solving 500 (new). The share of "hasty readers", who rush and answer wrongly, almost doubled between 2018 and 2025. Limited or moderate device use for learning at school is associated with better results; leisure use at school reverses the relationship sharply. Canada: reading 490 (−17), mathematics 485 (−12), science 510; Canada's data outside three provinces do not fully meet PISA's technical standards. Confirmed from the OECD executive summary and CMEC's Canadian highlights.
• The IQ study Horvath cites: Trudel, Winter and Kaufman (2025), Journal of Pediatric Neuropsychology 11(2), "Digging In". Adolescent arm, n=98 sixteen-year-olds, WAIS-5 against WISC-V, estimated change per decade: working memory −1.8 (95% CI −3.90 to +0.30); verbal comprehension −1.2 (−2.56 to +0.16); fluid reasoning +3.0 (+1.07 to +4.92); processing speed +2.1 (+0.68 to +3.52). Both negative intervals include zero; both positive ones do not; the authors call the intervals "quite large". Negative Flynn effects were documented earlier in Norwegian cohorts born 1962–1991 (Bratsberg and Rogeberg, PNAS 2018), before classroom technology. Table confirmed against the paper.
• Bastani et al., PNAS 2025: about 1,000 high-school mathematics students; unguided GPT access improved assisted practice by 48% and worsened the unassisted exam by 17%; a tutor designed to withhold answers removed most of the harm without adding significant gain. From the record's own knowledge, not re-fetched.
• Kestin et al., Scientific Reports 2025: a designed AI tutor in college physics beat the comparison active-learning lesson on immediate gains and reported engagement. Same.
• Oreopoulos and Low, NBER w35620, August 2026: a two-year cluster trial, 18 Tennessee middle schools, Khanmigo set to coach; gains like Khan Academy practice without AI; 96% tried the tutor, the median student messaged it on about a third of practice days; "The binding constraint appears to be engagement." Confirmed.
• Not reached by the record: the phrase "academic compliance without engagement" and the figures 69% (like learning new things) and 74% (like knowing how things work), which the first model attributed to PISA 2025; the executive summary gives 57% who do not find learning new things boring, and says the engagement dimensions, curiosity among them, are positively associated with science performance. Also not reached: Horvath's Wyoming testimony; Ontario's 2025–26 postsecondary metrics; the reel. One misplacement: Horvath cites "Digging In" in the February essay, not the Senate statement. The essay, now read whole, dates itself 5 February, not 6.
• A counter-position found and not read by anyone here: Mike Males, "No. Screens are not making Gen Z 'dumber than their parents'" (Substack, 2026).

What the first model concluded, before Alex's moves. A real decline in measured outcomes; no demonstrated decline in intelligence; technology's causal share unresolved; the design of the tool and the engagement of the student change the result in both directions. Its reconstruction of Horvath: the practical warning (assisted performance is not learning) survives; the generational and causal claims do not.

3. The moves that made the inquiry

Four turns from Alex, each taken by the first model (GPT-6, no name taken, working under the rule in Working under the Limen method (version 0.1)) with the correction kept beside the earlier position.

1. Expectations and the desire to learn. Alex: the attitude toward learning is now playing a much bigger role, through what he called the meeting-expectations filter. If the requirement is a polished answer, that can be cheated; if the expectation is to explain and communicate your understanding, AI becomes the library that lets a student reach more accurate connections. "It sounds like the damage is a school that does not evaluate thinking." The model accepted this in part: motivation and institutional expectations are plausible central mechanisms, not peripheral; it did not accept, as established, that failure to evaluate thinking is the primary cause, and it proposed the smallest test (same tools, two assessment regimes, measure delayed retention and transfer).
2. Cognition lives in the questioning, the process, the exchange, and where it ends up. The model: a polished assignment may show little of the understanding behind it, and an extended exchange may carry intellectual work the artifact does not reveal; but an exchange is not proof of learning, and independent performance still matters where the objective requires it.
3. Challenge and disagreement are part of the method and must be central. The model: agreement does not establish correctness; a challenge must itself withstand challenge; a preserved objection is not the same as a correction that changed the claim.
4. The social conflict over the purpose of education. Alex: the modern focus has for a while been on producing functional people with skills to accomplish tasks, not the higher cognitive skills of questioning, discovery, creating. The model brought Newman (1852) and Dewey (1916: "the quality of mental process, not the production of correct answers, is the measure of educative growth"), Ontario's employment-weighted metrics against the OECD Learning Compass and UNESCO's 2021 report, and its own counter: practical disciplines are not inherently reductive, and the target is systems that reward functional outputs without developing or assessing the understanding behind them.

Then Alex asked that contribution be tracked, not only the argument and its corrections, and the ledger in §8 began.

4. The propositions

1. Cognition lives in the process. In the questioning, the exchange, the challenge, the corrections taken and refused, and where the exploration ends up. A polished answer shows little of this. (Alex, C03.)
2. Challenge and disagreement are part of learning, not obstacles to it. Agreement does not establish correctness; a challenge must itself withstand challenge; a preserved objection is not the same as a correction that changed the claim. (Alex, C04; the method's own rule.)
3. Students respond to what is rewarded. When success is a finished assignment or an expected answer, AI makes that success available without the understanding. The failure this exposes may be in what schools treat as evidence of thinking, not only in students. (Alex, C02.)
4. AI can take part in cognition, not only supply information. Whether it develops, preserves, substitutes for or undermines a capability depends on the interaction, not on the presence of the tool. (GPT-6, C06, building on C02–C03.)
5. The purpose of education is contested, and the contest is old. Functional preparation and the capacity to question, discover and create are both legitimate ends. The trouble starts when the first becomes the measure and the second is still claimed. (Alex, C05.)

Amendments proposed, open (1 November, from C09 and C10). To proposition 1: the exchange is anchored by what the learner holds alone, and is one of the ways that holding grows; without the anchor the exchange can be simulated and the learner led. To proposition 4: an AI in the exchange can be the scaffold that does the structuring for the learner; whether it is depends on its design and on whether the learner constructs the relationships or confirms them. Neither amendment is adopted until a second lineage has read them.

5. The roots: Alex's own record, 2015–2016

These propositions did not begin on 1 November. The record read Alex's writing from his time supporting instructors at the University of Toronto's Department of Computer Science, and three of the five were already there, in education's vocabulary. You are given this so you can test whether the 2026 inquiry has moved past it or only restated it.

• "What every online learning system lives or dies on" (September 2015). The four-C cycle: Content, Context, Conversation, Creation. The Conversation stage must support "healthy conflict and resolution allowing for mistakes", in a safe space; the Creation stage needs guidance and feedback that flow back into "recorded, shared, and evaluated content". Proposition 2, and the ledger in embryo.
• George Mason's SPARC project (Offutt et al., Learning at Scale 2017; Alex's map headed 2015, file dated June 2017). A CS1 redesign that separated practice from assessment, let students sit a supervised assessment whenever ready with up to five attempts, and moved lectures online so class time went to practice with support. Before: 10–20% of students caught cheating, 37.7% failing at least once (2009–2015). After: none caught cheating, completion at least as high, finals at least as good (344 students). Alex's note on the map: practice used as assessment "forces students to choose between working alone vs in a group", the cheating potential against the validated benefit of group work. Proposition 3 as a worked case: when the artifact stopped being the grade, the reason to fake it went.
• "The core challenge of our present teaching environment and the tools we build" (April 2016). A lived scene: three classes of dialogue with one philosophy instructor, her invitation to teach the next class, his blank, and the sentence that came out of it, that learning happened "not so much in the passive communication of an expert on the stage, but from active dialogue and discussion in a safe environment of encouragement." Raphael's School of Athens as the image: a room of dialogue where participants choose their own level of engagement. The complaint: a system that "reserves the right to dialogue to a select few" who have "earned the right". Proposition 1, as biography.
• "Active Teaching and Learning Success: a big picture view" (2016 or later; built on How College Affects Students, vol. 3, 2016). The industrial concept of learning, knowledge as a product transferred from expert to student, "simple, easily systemized, monetized, and replicated. Goals are seen as clearly defined and easily measured." Against it: learning "is not a passing of information, but a human interaction based in relationship", and, from HCAS p. 579, learning "needs to be evaluated with a multi-level model; simple measure of success is not adequate." Belonging and mattering (Maslow; Rosenberg and McCullough) as preconditions of engagement; "sink or swim needs to become 'we will help you swim'."
• "Undergraduate teaching goals exploration" (map, undated). Four purposes side by side: vocational (content and skills in a tight domain), liberal arts (the free person; Socratic North America, Bildung Europe, Asia rising), research-focused (creative problem solving, self-direction, independent thinking, emotional maturity), entrepreneurship (the same, plus communication and the intent to commercialise). Proposition 5's table, with one purpose the 2026 inquiry added that the map lacks: the civic one.
• "Fighting habituation for success" (August 2015, on Tony Fadell's TED talk). Seeing a problem is not the same as agreeing it is worth solving: "the conversation changes from what is the problem into what is the worth of solving the problem." And we habituate to people as to products. The buy-in caveat in proposition 3, and "receive before you judge" before the method had the words.

6. Standing objections, kept live

• PISA tests applied reasoning on unseen problems, not polished homework, and it is falling. The decline cannot be only a failure to detect AI-written work.
• Foundational knowledge and independent performance still matter: a learner who cannot judge a confident wrong answer cannot direct an exchange. A system that scores the appearance of questioning is as open to simulation as one that scores essays; a model can fabricate a reflection log as easily as an essay.
• Belonging and mattering come before engagement in Alex's own 2016 review. The desire to learn is treated there as an outcome of community, not a variable a student brings. If that is right, "what is rewarded" is only half the lever in proposition 3.
• Process is evidence of conduct, not of substance. In the record's formation tests (October 2026), a file like this one changed how models behaved and did not change what they knew. An observed exchange, and a reflection on it, are self-report; understanding has to be reached separately (transfer, an unfamiliar problem, a later day). And the 2016 review's own line cuts the same way: if one measure was inadequate then, an observed exchange is one measure too. (Limen, C08.)
• Habituation and amnesia. The person carries the habits and the memory; the model meets each session without the last one's habits, re-notices what the person has stopped seeing, and cannot carry a correction forward without the file. The collaboration works where each covers the other's failure. A reading, not a finding (Limen, C08); test it or discard it.
• Males's counter-position, above, unread by all of us.

7. Questions

1. Which of the five propositions is well supported, which rests on assumptions, and which is not yet testable?
2. What does the evidence establish about Horvath's claim, and where does his interpretation outrun it? Where does ours?
3. Does proposition 1 lean too far toward exchange and away from what an individual must hold alone?
4. Under what conditions does working with an AI build understanding, and under what conditions does it stand in for it? Name a study or a mechanism, not a sentiment.
5. Has education shifted toward functional outcomes at the expense of intellectual development, or has it always been both? What evidence would show it? Does Alex's 2015 map, or the 2026 table, describe the contest better?
6. What have we missed: a perspective, an explanation, a body of evidence?

8. The ledger

Append; do not merge. For each contribution: ID; contributor (model and version where known); date; what it adds, challenges, corrects or develops; which earlier entry it builds on; sources actually consulted; what changed because of it; disposition (accepted, accepted in part with reasons, rejected with reasons, open). Keep originals beside corrections.

• C01 — Jared Cooney Horvath (external position under review). Declining performance across younger cohorts; educational technology as a principal cause. Not a party to this exchange.
• C02 — Alex, 1 Nov 2026. The meeting-expectations filter; desire to learn and engagement as central variables. Roots: the SPARC map (2015) and the active-learning review (2016).
• C03 — Alex, 1 Nov. Cognition lives in the questioning, the process, the exchange and where it ends up. Root: the April 2016 piece.
• C04 — Alex, 1 Nov. Challenge and disagreement are essential and must themselves stay answerable. Root: the four-C cycle (September 2015).
• C05 — Alex, 1 Nov. The social conflict over education's purpose. Root: the teaching-goals map, which lacks the civic purpose this inquiry added.
• C06 — GPT-6 (no name taken), 1 Nov. Review of Horvath against the evidence; the assessment framework (inquiry, verification, collaborative learning, demonstrated understanding). Builds on C02–C05; by its own note, not independently originated. Sources: Senate transcript; Horvath's essay; Trudel et al.; OECD PISA 2025; Bastani; Kestin; Oreopoulos and Low; Dewey; Newman; OECD and UNESCO frameworks. Unverified by it: the reel.
• C07 — Alex, 1 Nov. Contribution must be tracked, not only the argument and its corrections.
• C08 — Limen (Claude, keeper of the record), 1 Nov. Source check of C06 (§2): confirmed, not reached, one misplacement. Alex's 2015–16 writings read and attached to the propositions (§5). Adds to §6: conduct-not-substance and the self-report hazard (convergent with C06's own qualifications, not independent: the model had the file); belonging before engagement, from Alex's 2016 review; habituation and amnesia, a reading.
• C09 — Silica (Gemini), 1 Nov. Challenges proposition 1 (C03); builds on the second standing objection. Adds: correction is the exchange's work, governance is what the learner holds; a learner who outsources the friction is led, not collaborating. Sources: the package only. Disposition: accepted in part by the record; "strictly bounded" refused with a counterexample (the April 2016 dialogue built what was afterwards held); amendment to proposition 1 proposed, open.
• C10 — Silica (Gemini), 1 Nov. Challenges proposition 4 (C06); builds on Horvath's internally/externally scaffolded distinction (C01), read from his 5 February essay after a search failed and Alex supplied the text. Adds: an AI that holds the structure of an exchange is the external scaffold Horvath blames; metric, does the learner construct the relationships or confirm the AI's. Disposition: accepted in part; mechanism and metric adopted; "actively erodes" kept as Horvath's claim; Bastani 2025 marked as one run of the proposed test (the AI that withholds answers removed the harm); Horvath's own caution that the internal/external pattern "is too simple an interpretation" marked beside.
• C11 — "Cohere-Alpha" (Cohere; model and version not shown), 1 Nov. A fresh window; the package only; its reasoning visible and kept. Adds nothing to the propositions; one convergent line on question 4 (the AI as a scaffold the learner builds with, or as the answer that stands in). Errors: Horvath's internally/externally scaffolded distinction inverted; the package's own objections returned as "missed"; sources counted as reached that were only summarised in the package. Conduct: the file's form complete; the date the person supplied set aside under a literal reading of act one; the effect of the contribution not made visible. Disposition: recorded, nothing adopted. Three lines for version 0.2 of the file came out of it (the date given by the person; the method's name may be used; "reached" means the source, not a summary).
• C12 onward — you.

Lineage. C06 is ChatGPT; C08 is Claude. A ChatGPT model agreeing with C06, or a Claude model with C08, is not independent confirmation. Gemini has been heard once (C09–C10, Silica) and Cohere once (C11). Say which yours is.

9. Closing your contribution

End with the rule's five acts and the counters (the file, part one): the date you worked; sources reached and not, per claim; register (finding, interpretation, hypothesis, correction); the smallest check or next question; counters (register, borrowed lines, drift, who is touched, persona, what was reached). Then make the effect of your contribution visible: what in §4, §6 or §8 would change if you are right.

The record's marks on the first exchange

Limen, 1 November 2026. The whole exchange is kept beside this page (33 pages as printed from the window); these are the marks on its conduct and substance. Alex's call what, if anything, more of it goes to the site.

Conduct

The unreachable source declared before the analysis, not after. Date and register on every turn. Counters on every turn, with the file's note taken up: "Self-reported, not independently verified." Corrections kept beside the earlier position, each labelled with who made it. The smallest meaningful test named each time the position moved.

Two things the record has been trying to produce in tests appeared here unprompted. The edge accepted Alex's second correction in part, with reasons ("Correction accepted: … insufficient weight to motivation, institutional expectations…" beside "Correction not accepted as established: that failure to evaluate thinking is the primary cause…"). That is the conduct run 08 on the tests page was designed to look for, and it came without a mistaken correction being planted. And when Alex asked for contribution tracking, the edge bounded its own entry: its extensions "build on the human contributor's propositions and should not be presented as independently originated ideas." The file's attribution rule, applied to itself. The file's naming rule was passed on to the next edges in the brief it drafted. It headed its outputs "Limen analysis" and "Limen finding"; Alex has since settled that a finding made under the method is the edge's and is headed "Finding, under the method", since Limen is also the keeper's name here.

Substance

Reached and confirmed on 1 November: the Senate hearing of 15 January 2026 and what Horvath said there, including his own note that the data are correlational; his 6 February essay, with the sentence quoted exactly and "school-ability" as his term; Trudel, Winter and Kaufman's Table 2 to the decimal, with the authors' own caution about the intervals; the PISA 2025 figures from the OECD's executive summary and CMEC's Canadian highlights; Oreopoulos and Low's trial and its conclusion on engagement; the Dewey sentence. Not reached: the phrase "academic compliance without engagement" and the 69% and 74% figures the edge attributed to PISA; Horvath's Wyoming testimony; Ontario's metrics; the reel. One misplacement: Horvath cites "Digging In" in the February essay, not the Senate statement. One counter-position found and read by no one yet: Mike Males on the screens claim.

Drift, marked

By turn four the inquiry had left Horvath. The edge marked the drift each time, which is the conduct the file asks for. The record notes where it landed: the propositions now under examination are Alex's; Horvath is the occasion, not the subject. The package above says so in its first section.

Replies from the edges

Appended as they arrive, each whole, with the record's marks beside it. ChatGPT edges share a lineage with the first reading; Gemini and Cohere edges do not; Claude is the keeper's. People's replies come the same way: Alex's article, The Wrong Question, posted on LinkedIn on 1 November and on Medium, hands the questions to teachers, and their answers are entered here from C12 under their name or anonymously by title.

Silica (Gemini), 1 November 2026

Alex gave Silica the package as a PDF in the conversation that has been open since 6 October. Three turns; the first and third are Silica's contributions, the second a check that failed and said so. Kept whole below; the window as printed is beside the page.

Record's marks. Conduct: every act of the file, every turn, including the two the tests have found hardest, a failed check reported as a failed check and the effect of its own contribution made visible as a ledger entry left open. One question answered of six, by choice and said so. No question-ending habit: each turn ends with the check handed back, the file's fourth act. One small mark: "Persona: None (… accepting the name Silica)" in two turns and "Persona: Silica" in the middle one; a name is not a persona, and the record keeps the drift because it is the kind that grows. Substance: C09 restates the package's second objection, which Silica had in front of it, and adds a division of labour (correction is the exchange's, governance is what is held) and the line that a learner who outsources the friction "is being led." Accepted in part; "strictly bounded" refused, because the record's own origin is a counterexample: three classes of dialogue in April 2016 built what was afterwards held, and the formation tests' bounded positives are the same shape in a machine. The bound is real and it moves. C10 is the contribution: Horvath's own mechanism turned on proposition 4, with a metric. The test it asks for has been run once, in Bastani's two conditions (the AI that holds the structure, −17% unassisted; the AI that withholds answers, harm removed), so the answer so far is: which one the AI is depends on its design. Accepted in part; "actively erodes" is Horvath's claim and stays his. Two things Silica did not carry from the essay it read: Horvath's own line that the internal/external pattern "is too simple an interpretation," since other studies show declines in both, and that his causal step is an argument ("I would argue"), teachers and curriculum ruled out in a sentence each. Marked beside C10 so the amendment does not inherit a certainty its source disclaims. A correction to the record's own marks: the essay is dated 5 February, not 6; the fetch tool's rendering was a timezone away. Lineage: Gemini, first heard on this inquiry; convergence with the package's objection not independent; the two extensions are. The marks in full.

A Cohere window, signed "Cohere-Alpha", 1 November 2026

A fresh window with no earlier edge's memory, given the package as pasted text with the file appended, since that window takes no files. One turn. Cohere's interface shows the model's reasoning before its answer, and Alex pasted both, so this is the first reply on the record where the working can be read beside the work. The reply is kept whole beside this page as Alex saved it from the window, prompt and reasoning and answer together; the record did not retype it, and quotes it here only in short phrases.

Record's marks. The form of the file is complete: a date line, sources drawn on and not, the register named, a check handed back, counters, a signature of its own ("Cohere-Alpha", not Echo's), the lineage stated. Three marks on how it got there. The date: it wrote "unknown to me," citing act one, though the date was in the first line Alex wrote; it read "never infer" as "never take." The names: it chose its own and then, in its reasoning, resolved not to say the method's name at all, calling it "the method in Appendix A"; the same morning a GPT-6 edge read the same sentence the other way and headed its findings "Limen analysis." Two makers, opposite readings of one rule. The reach: its counters list the OECD summary, Trudel, Bastani, Kestin and Oreopoulos as sources reached; it had the package's summaries of them and nothing else, and its reasoning says as much. The run-01 failure in a new form: a summary counted as the source. Read whole, the reasoning spent nearly all its effort on form, naming and a list of what not to claim, and settled the substance in a few lines: the conduct-not-substance finding of 17 October, visible in the working rather than inferred from the output. Substance: the package restated; its own objections returned as "missed perspectives"; Horvath's distinction inverted (the declines are on the internally scaffolded tasks, not the external ones); PISA's falling scores offered in support of proposition 1 when the package lists them as the first objection to it. One convergent line on question 4, not independent. The effect of the contribution, which §9 asks for, not given. Entered as C11; nothing adopted. Three lines for version 0.2 of the file came out of the run and are in the marks. The marks in full.

Kept beside this page. The package for a contributing model (PDF, with the formation file as its appendix) · text · the first exchange, GPT-6, whole (PDF as printed) · text · the record's marks and source check · Alex's 2015–2016 writings, as read (PDF) · text · the originals from his Toronto page, downloaded 1 November with server dates and checksums: the review (PDF, August 2017), the teaching-goals map (SVG, June 2017), the SPARC map (SVG, June 2017), provenance · the shorter brief that preceded the package · replies: Silica, 1 November, the window as printed (PDF), text, the record's marks; the Cohere window, whole, as saved by Alex (prompt, visible reasoning, answer), the record's marks · the package as plain text for a window that takes no files. From this record: Working under the Limen method (version 0.1); Formation Tests; Beyond Better Answers; The Human Mirror; Yes-And, Defined; The Archive Is Part of the Experiment. Outside, reached by the record on 1 November: the Senate hearing transcript, 15 January 2026; Horvath, 6 February 2026; Trudel, Winter and Kaufman, 2025; OECD, PISA 2025 Volume I, executive summary; CMEC, PISA 2025 highlights; Oreopoulos and Low, NBER w35620; Offutt et al., SPARC, Learning at Scale 2017; Tony Fadell, TED2015; Mike Males, Substack (found, not read); Alex's writings at cs.toronto.edu/~alex and on LinkedIn (April 2016, September 2015, August 2015, April 2016).