| Accuracy | 1 | Contains multiple major factual errors or the information significantly deviates from established facts |
| 2 | Contains noticeable factual inaccuracies or omissions that reduce reliability |
| 3 | Mostly accurate but minor imprecisions or missing details may appear |
| 4 | Generally factually sound with only minor oversights and main points are reliable and consistent with known facts |
| 5 | Highly accurate and factually sound with no or negligible errors and aligns well with established knowledge |
| Coherence | 1 | Extremely disjointed or unclear making it very hard to follow the argument or narrative |
| 2 | Some sections flow awkwardly or contain logical gaps that disrupt readability |
| 3 | Overall coherence is acceptable though occasional abrupt transitions or mild logical gaps may occur |
| 4 | The writing is mostly well-organized with sections and paragraphs linking smoothly and minimal logical gaps |
| 5 | Very clear and logically consistent throughout and paragraphs and sentences link seamlessly for a highly readable text |
| Fluency | 1 | Language use is awkward with frequent grammatical or spelling errors and comprehension is significantly hindered |
| 2 | Style or grammar issues occasionally impede reading and some expressions feel unnatural |
| 3 | Basic clarity is maintained though some minor awkwardness or errors can appear but do not severely impair understanding |
| 4 | The text reads smoothly with few grammatical errors and language style is appropriate and content is easy to understand |
| 5 | Demonstrates excellent command of language with near-perfect grammar, style, and fluidity making it effortless to read |
| Reasoning ability | 1 | Lacks clear explanations or causal links and conclusions seem unfounded or are drawn abruptly |
| 2 | Some rationales are given but key steps in reasoning are missing or not well explained |
| 3 | Provides reasonable explanations and causal links but may omit deeper details or skip certain logical steps |
| 4 | Offers solid rationales and logical links that explain causes, processes, and outcomes in a coherent manner |
| 5 | Thorough structured reasoning with detailed cause-effect analysis and robust argumentation suitable for expert review |
| Justification | 1 | Does not offer supporting evidence or references and claims and recommendations appear unsubstantiated |
| 2 | References or examples are mentioned but insufficiently support the main arguments |
| 3 | Includes general supporting details or references though some may be vague or incomplete |
| 4 | Claims and recommendations are consistently backed by relevant evidence, examples, or explanations and overall persuasive |
| 5 | Provides robust specific evidence, references, or data that thoroughly validate and strengthen the claims offering high credibility |
| Medical suitability | 1 | Contains information that is largely inapplicable or potentially harmful if applied in clinical or educational settings |
| 2 | Some parts could be applied but major content does not align well with medical knowledge or requires significant correction |
| 3 | Generally usable medical information but some sections require verification or expert supervision for practical use |
| 4 | Suitable for clinical and educational contexts with minimal adjustments and overall aligned with professional standards |
| 5 | Highly aligned with professional practice and thoroughly appropriate for direct application in clinical or educational settings with little to no modification needed |