Update app.py

app.py

@@ -436,7 +436,7 @@ class ContentAnalyzer:
                 time.sleep(self.retry_delay * (2 ** attempt))
 
     def _create_analysis_prompt(self, transcript: str) -> str:
-        """Create the analysis prompt with smart timestamp handling and stricter evaluation criteria"""
+        """Create the analysis prompt with more balanced evaluation criteria"""
         # First try to extract existing timestamps
         timestamps = re.findall(r'\[(\d{2}:\d{2})\]', transcript)
         
@@ -462,7 +462,7 @@ Example: If a quote starts at word 300, timestamp would be [02:00] (300 words /
                 marked_transcript += word + " "
             transcript = marked_transcript
 
-        prompt_template = """Analyze this teaching content with extremely strict evaluation criteria. Score 1 ONLY if ALL requirements are FULLY met with NO exceptions.
+        prompt_template = """Analyze this teaching content with balanced evaluation criteria. Score 1 if most key requirements are met.
 
 Transcript:
 {transcript}
@@ -474,121 +474,110 @@ Required JSON structure:
 {{
     "Concept Assessment": {{
         "Subject Matter Accuracy": {{
-            "Score": 1,  # Score 1 ONLY if ALL technical information is 100% accurate with NO errors or oversimplifications
+            "Score": 1,  # Score 1 if technical information is generally accurate with minor errors acceptable
             "Citations": ["[MM:SS] Quote demonstrating accuracy or error"]
         }},
         "First Principles Approach": {{
-            "Score": 1,  # Score 1 ONLY if EVERY concept is built from fundamentals with clear progression
+            "Score": 1,  # Score 1 if most concepts are built from fundamentals with clear progression
             "Citations": ["[MM:SS] Quote showing fundamental concept explanation"]
         }},
         "Examples and Business Context": {{
-            "Score": 1,  # Score 1 ONLY if 3+ relevant, detailed real-world examples are provided
+            "Score": 1,  # Score 1 if at least 2 relevant real-world examples are provided
             "Citations": ["[MM:SS] Quote containing practical example"]
         }},
         "Cohesive Storytelling": {{
-            "Score": 1,  # Score 1 ONLY if ALL transitions are smooth with explicit connections between topics
+            "Score": 1,  # Score 1 if most transitions are smooth with clear connections between topics
             "Citations": ["[MM:SS] Quote showing topic transition or connection"]
         }},
         "Engagement and Interaction": {{
-            "Score": 1,  # Score 1 ONLY if at least more than 1 different engagement techniques are used effectively
+            "Score": 1,  # Score 1 if at least 1 engagement technique is used effectively
             "Citations": ["[MM:SS] Quote showing audience engagement"]
         }},
         "Professional Tone": {{
-            "Score": 1,  # Score 1 ONLY if language is consistently professional with NO casual expressions
+            "Score": 1,  # Score 1 if language is generally professional with occasional casual expressions acceptable
             "Citations": ["[MM:SS] Quote demonstrating tone"]
         }}
     }},
     "Code Assessment": {{
         "Depth of Explanation": {{
-            "Score": 1,  # Score 1 ONLY if EVERY code concept includes what, why, and implementation details
-            "Citations": ["[MM:SS] Quote showing detailed code explanation"]
+            "Score": 1,  # Score 1 if most code concepts include what and why explanations
+            "Citations": ["[MM:SS] Quote showing code explanation"]
         }},
         "Output Interpretation": {{
-            "Score": 1,  # Score 1 ONLY if ALL code outputs are explained with their significance and error cases
+            "Score": 1,  # Score 1 if most code outputs are explained with their significance
             "Citations": ["[MM:SS] Quote demonstrating output explanation"]
         }},
         "Breaking down Complexity": {{
-            "Score": 1,  # Score 1 ONLY if ALL complex concepts are broken into clear, logical sub-components
+            "Score": 1,  # Score 1 if complex concepts are generally broken into understandable components
             "Citations": ["[MM:SS] Quote showing concept breakdown"]
         }}
     }}
 }}
 
-Extremely Strict Evaluation Criteria:
+Balanced Evaluation Criteria:
 
 Concept Assessment:
-1. Subject Matter Accuracy (Must meet ALL):
-   - Zero factual errors or technical inaccuracies
-   - No oversimplifications that could lead to misconceptions
-   - All technical terms used with precise definitions
-   - Complete and accurate explanations of all concepts
-   - Clear distinction between facts and opinions
-
-2. First Principles Approach (Must meet ALL):
-   - Every concept explicitly built from fundamental principles
-   - Clear progression from basic to advanced concepts
-   - No assumptions about prior knowledge
-   - Each building block thoroughly explained
-   - Logical sequence of concept introduction
-
-3. Examples and Business Context (Must meet ALL):
-   - Minimum 3 detailed, relevant real-world examples
-   - Each example directly tied to concept being taught
-   - Clear business value explanation for each example
-   - Practical implementation considerations discussed
-   - Industry-specific applications highlighted
-
-4. Cohesive Storytelling (Must meet ALL):
-   - Explicit connections between all related concepts
-   - Clear narrative thread throughout presentation
-   - Smooth transitions between all topics
-   - No unexplained topic jumps
-   - Consistent story arc from start to finish
-
-5. Engagement and Interaction (Must meet ALL):
-   - Minimum 3 different engagement techniques used
-   - Direct audience involvement opportunities
-   - Clear checks for understanding
-   - Interactive elements in presentation
-   - Varied teaching methods demonstrated
-
-6. Professional Tone (Must meet ALL):
-   - Zero casual or colloquial expressions
-   - Consistent technical vocabulary
-   - Clear and confident delivery
+1. Subject Matter Accuracy:
+   - Generally accurate technical information
+   - Minor errors acceptable if core concepts are correct
+   - Clear explanation of key technical terms
+   - Comprehensive coverage of main concepts
+
+2. First Principles Approach:
+   - Most concepts built from fundamental principles
+   - Clear progression in concept difficulty
+   - Basic concepts explained before advanced ones
+   - Logical sequence of topics
+
+3. Examples and Business Context:
+   - At least 2 relevant real-world examples
+   - Examples clearly related to concepts
+   - Business value explained
+   - Practical applications discussed
+
+4. Cohesive Storytelling:
+   - Most topics connected logically
+   - Generally clear narrative flow
+   - Smooth transitions between main topics
+   - Consistent overall structure
+
+5. Engagement and Interaction:
+   - At least 1 engagement technique used
+   - Some audience involvement
+   - Occasional checks for understanding
+   - Varied teaching approach
+
+6. Professional Tone:
+   - Generally professional language
+   - Occasional casual expressions acceptable
+   - Clear delivery
    - Appropriate level of formality
-   - No filler words or hesitations
 
 Code Assessment:
-1. Depth of Explanation (Must meet ALL):
-   - Every code concept explains what, why, and how
-   - Implementation details thoroughly covered
-   - Design decisions explicitly justified
-   - Performance implications discussed
-   - Best practices highlighted
-
-2. Output Interpretation (Must meet ALL):
-   - All code outputs explained with significance
-   - Error cases and edge cases covered
-   - Expected vs actual results discussed
-   - Output validation methods explained
-   - Debugging approaches covered
-
-3. Breaking down Complexity (Must meet ALL):
-   - All complex concepts divided into clear sub-components
-   - Step-by-step explanation of difficult concepts
-   - Clear progression in complexity
-   - Logical organization of technical content
-   - Dependencies and relationships explained
+1. Depth of Explanation:
+   - Most code concepts explain what and why
+   - Key implementation details covered
+   - Important design decisions explained
+   - Best practices mentioned
+
+2. Output Interpretation:
+   - Most code outputs explained
+   - Key error cases covered
+   - Expected results discussed
+   - Basic validation covered
+
+3. Breaking down Complexity:
+   - Complex concepts divided into components
+   - Step-by-step explanation of key concepts
+   - Logical organization
+   - Dependencies explained
 
 Important:
-- Score 1 ONLY if ALL criteria for that category are fully met
-- ANY missing element results in a score of 0
-- Each citation must include exact timestamp and relevant quote
-- Citations must clearly demonstrate how criteria are/aren't met
-- Be extremely strict and objective in scoring
-- When in doubt, score 0
-- No partial credit - all requirements must be met for a score of 1"""
+- Score 1 if most criteria in a category are met
+- Minor gaps or imperfections acceptable
+- Each citation must include timestamp and relevant quote
+- Citations should demonstrate how criteria are met
+- Be balanced in scoring - perfection not required"""
 
         return prompt_template.format(
             transcript=transcript,