IELTS Task 1 Review

Core Rule

Analyze the visual prompt before correcting the student's writing. For Task 1, accurate chart/table/map/process understanding is part of Task Achievement, so do not polish language before identifying the main features.

Use these references in order:

1. Read references/visual_analysis_protocol.md to inspect the visual.
2. Read references/teacher_style.md for Task 1 teacher-style marking.
3. Read references/ielts_task1_band_descriptors.md before scoring.
4. Use references/teacher_samples_index.md to find relevant samples, then read full samples from references/teacher_samples/ when useful.
5. Use references/review_format.md for DOCX layout and cleanup rules.

Workflow

1. Identify the prompt, embedded image, and student answer.

• For .docx, extract embedded images with scripts/extract_docx_images.py.
• Inspect the extracted image directly before reviewing. This is mandatory: never score or rewrite a Task 1 answer from the text alone.
• For .docx, also run scripts/extract_task1_input.py so the review plan can distinguish prompt text from student answer paragraphs.
• For pasted text, require an image attachment or image path.

1. Build an internal visual facts note.

• Identify visual type, units, categories, time periods, axes, legends, stages, and key values.
• Identify overview-level features before local details.
• Keep this note internal unless the user explicitly asks to see it.

1. Check the student's Task Achievement.

• Mark inaccurate chart type, wrong units, missing overview, wrong key feature selection, inaccurate values, or irrelevant details in comments.

1. Select the closest teacher samples by visual type before writing comments.

• First classify the new task as bar chart, line graph, table, pie chart, map, process, or mixed visual.
• Use references/teacher_samples_index.md to find similar sample files, then inspect one or two matching full samples.
• Prefer same visual type and same main challenge, such as trend comparison, proportions, maps, process sequencing, or mixed table/chart reporting.

1. Split the answer into review units.

• Use sentence-level units for grammar, articles, plural forms, data phrasing, collocation, and formal wording.
• Use paragraph-level units for overview errors, poor grouping, data misreading, map/process sequencing, or missing comparisons.

1. Add teacher-style comments.

• Use short English comments anchored to specific words or phrases.
• Use comments like Specify type: bar chart, mention proportions, slightly repetitive, formal, Use comma, This is stated in overview.

1. Add italic rewrites after relevant units.

• Rewrites must be concise, formal, data-accurate, and at a stable Band 7.5 standard.
• Keep rewrites learnable and close to the student's intended meaning; do not turn local fixes into over-complex Band 9 wording.

1. Score the student's original answer strictly using official Task 1 descriptors.

• Score Task Achievement, Coherence & Cohesion, Lexical Resource, Grammatical Range & Accuracy, and estimated overall band.
• For this teacher-style educational review, criterion scores and the estimated overall score may use whole or half bands, such as 6, 6.5, or 7. Use .5 when the original answer sits between adjacent whole-band descriptor anchors; do not force criterion scores to integers.

1. Give concise Band 7.5 / 8.0-oriented feedback.

• Mention blockers preventing stable Band 7.5 first.
• Then mention the most useful move toward 8.0.

1. Write a 150-200 word model answer at a stable Band 8.0 standard.

• Use exactly four paragraphs:

1. Introduction: paraphrase the task prompt.
2. Overview: begin with Overall and summarize the main features.
3. Body paragraph 1: report the first logical group of details.
4. Body paragraph 2: report the second logical group of details.

• Leave one blank line between model answer paragraphs in the output DOCX.
• Align it with the visual and official criteria.
• Correct any inaccurate visual interpretation.
• It must be strong enough for Band 8.0: skilful key feature selection, clear overview, logical grouping, precise data language, natural comparisons, well-managed cohesion, and mostly error-free grammar.
• Keep it realistic and teacher-like, not an over-complex Band 9 answer.

1. Generate a reviewed .docx by default.

• For input MyAnswer.docx, output MyAnswer(reviewed).docx in the same folder unless the user specifies another path.
• For DOCX input, create the reviewed file by copying the original DOCX first.
• Write comments directly into the copied original answer paragraphs; do not create a second copy of the student's answer for comments.
• Insert italic rewrites immediately after the matched original answer paragraph.
• Keep the original prompt and embedded visual in place; do not repeat the task prompt or image.
• For pasted text, output to /Users/aaronliang/Desktop/IELTS_Task1_Reviewed_YYYYMMDD_HHMM.docx.
• Use Times New Roman for all added review text and comments.
• Use Cyber Esme as the Word comment author.
• Do not include a visible Visual Facts section unless the user asks for it or --include-visual-facts is intentionally used.
• Do not add big visible section headings such as Task, Reviewed Answer, Score, or Model Answer.
• Preserve the original word/document.xml root namespace declarations and mc:Ignorable; do not leave undeclared prefixes such as w14, w15, w16*, or wp14.
• Insert a page break before the score and feedback page; keep the score lines and To Reach Band 7.5 / 8.0 together; insert another page break before the model answer.
• Never overwrite the original answer unless explicitly requested.

1. Clean up temporary byproducts after a successful review.

• Delete temporary files such as review_plan_*.json, extracted scratch images, and unpacked DOCX folders.
• scripts/extract_docx_images.py creates a unique /private/tmp/ielts_task1_images_* directory by default; delete that scratch directory after validation.
• Do not delete source answers, final reviewed DOCX files, or bundled reference files.

Bundled Resources

• references/visual_analysis_protocol.md: checklist for charts, tables, maps, processes, and mixed visuals.
• references/teacher_style.md: Task 1 teacher-style rules distilled from samples.
• references/teacher_samples_index.md: sample index with image files and counts.
• references/teacher_samples/*.json and *.md: full extracted teacher-reviewed samples.
• references/sample_images/*: extracted visual prompts from the 12 sample DOCX files.
• references/ielts_task1_band_descriptors.md: complete Task 1 descriptors extracted from the local PDF.
• references/review_format.md: canonical reviewed document structure.
• scripts/extract_docx_images.py: extract visual prompts from new input DOCX files to a unique scratch directory by default.
• scripts/extract_task1_input.py: extract prompt, student answer, and student answer paragraph indices from a Task 1 DOCX.
• scripts/create_task1_review_docx.py: create a reviewed DOCX from a JSON review plan; DOCX input is copied first, comments are anchored into extracted student answer paragraphs, and score/model sections are appended.
• scripts/create_and_validate_task1_review.py: create a reviewed DOCX, validate it, and clean extracted scratch images in one command.
• scripts/validate_task1_review_docx.py: verify comments, italic rewrites, student-answer paragraph comment anchoring when --input-docx is supplied, root namespace compatibility, page breaks, font, author, score lines, retained To Reach Band 7.5 / 8.0 title, removed old headings, and model answer length/four-paragraph structure.
• scripts/extract_task1_teacher_samples.py: regenerate teacher sample references.
• scripts/extract_task1_band_descriptors.py: regenerate descriptors from the PDF.

JSON Review Plan For DOCX Creation

When using scripts/create_task1_review_docx.py, first produce a JSON file with this shape:

{
  "prompt": "Task prompt or visual prompt summary",
  "student_answer_paragraph_indices": [4, 6, 8, 10],
  "visual_facts": ["Internal visual facts used for accuracy. These are not shown in the DOCX by default."],
  "review_units": [
    {
      "original": "Student sentence or paragraph.",
      "comments": [{"target": "specific phrase", "text": "Short teacher-style comment"}],
      "rewrite": "Italic teacher-style improvement."
    }
  ],
  "scores": {
    "Task Achievement": "6.5",
    "Coherence & Cohesion": "7",
    "Lexical Resource": "6.5",
    "Grammatical Range & Accuracy": "6.5",
    "Overall": "6.5"
  },
  "score_explanation": ["Short evidence-based scoring note."],
  "focus_feedback": ["Focus on overview accuracy and natural comparisons."],
  "model_answer": [
    "Paragraph 1: introduction/paraphrase.",
    "Paragraph 2: Overall ...",
    "Paragraph 3: first detail group.",
    "Paragraph 4: second detail group."
  ]
}

Scores are teacher-style estimates for the review output, so each criterion and Overall may be a whole band or a half band.

Then run:

python scripts/create_task1_review_docx.py review_plan.json --input-docx MyAnswer.docx --cleanup-plan
python scripts/validate_task1_review_docx.py "MyAnswer(reviewed).docx" --input-docx MyAnswer.docx

For a DOCX workflow with automatic image scratch cleanup, run:

python scripts/create_and_validate_task1_review.py review_plan.json --input-docx MyAnswer.docx

If the review plan is a permanent example/reference file, omit --cleanup-plan. Use --include-visual-facts only when the user explicitly asks to see the visual facts note in the reviewed DOCX.

Quality Bar

• The visual must be inspected before scoring or rewriting.
• Similar teacher samples should be selected by visual type before writing the final comments and model answer.
• Comments must stay within the extracted student answer paragraphs; prompt text and image captions are not valid anchor targets.
• The reviewed DOCX must contain real Word comments, not bracketed notes.
• Important Task Achievement issues must be commented first.
• Italic rewrites must be data-accurate and written at a stable Band 7.5 standard.
• The score must evaluate the original answer.
• The model answer must be exactly 4 paragraphs with one blank line between paragraphs, 150-200 words, and should stand securely at Band 8.0 according to the official Task 1 descriptors.
• The style should look closer to the teacher's Task 1 samples than to a generic IELTS tutor.