Update app.py

app.py

@@ -458,22 +458,12 @@ Do not create new timestamps."""
             timestamp_instruction = """Generate timestamps based on word position:
 1. Count words from start of transcript
 2. Calculate time: (word_count / 150) minutes
-3. Format as [MM:SS]
-Example: If a quote starts at word 300, timestamp would be [02:00] (300 words / 150 words per minute)"""
-            
-            # Add word position markers
-            words = transcript.split()
-            marked_transcript = ""
-            for i, word in enumerate(words):
-                if i % 150 == 0:
-                    minutes = i // 150
-                    marked_transcript += f"\n[{minutes:02d}:00] "
-                marked_transcript += word + " "
-            transcript = marked_transcript
+3. Format as [MM:SS]"""
 
-        prompt_template = """Analyze this teaching content with strict standards. Each criterion must meet specific requirements for a passing score.
+    prompt_template = """Analyze this teaching content with strict standards. Each criterion must meet specific requirements for a passing score.
 
 Score 1 ONLY if ALL requirements are met with clear evidence. Score 0 if ANY requirement is not fully met.
+You MUST provide specific citations with timestamps [MM:SS] for each assessment point.
 
 Transcript:
 {transcript}
@@ -481,39 +471,81 @@ Transcript:
 Timestamp Instructions:
 {timestamp_instruction}
 
-Required JSON structure remains the same, but with stricter scoring criteria:
+Required JSON response format:
+{{
+    "Concept Assessment": {{
+        "Subject Matter Accuracy": {{
+            "Score": 0 or 1,
+            "Citations": ["[MM:SS] Exact quote showing evidence"]
+        }},
+        "First Principles Approach": {{
+            "Score": 0 or 1,
+            "Citations": ["[MM:SS] Exact quote showing evidence"]
+        }},
+        "Examples and Business Context": {{
+            "Score": 0 or 1,
+            "Citations": ["[MM:SS] Exact quote showing evidence"]
+        }},
+        "Cohesive Storytelling": {{
+            "Score": 0 or 1,
+            "Citations": ["[MM:SS] Exact quote showing evidence"]
+        }},
+        "Engagement and Interaction": {{
+            "Score": 0 or 1,
+            "Citations": ["[MM:SS] Exact quote showing evidence"]
+        }},
+        "Professional Tone": {{
+            "Score": 0 or 1,
+            "Citations": ["[MM:SS] Exact quote showing evidence"]
+        }}
+    }},
+    "Code Assessment": {{
+        "Depth of Explanation": {{
+            "Score": 0 or 1,
+            "Citations": ["[MM:SS] Exact quote showing evidence"]
+        }},
+        "Output Interpretation": {{
+            "Score": 0 or 1,
+            "Citations": ["[MM:SS] Exact quote showing evidence"]
+        }},
+        "Breaking down Complexity": {{
+            "Score": 0 or 1,
+            "Citations": ["[MM:SS] Exact quote showing evidence"]
+        }}
+    }}
+}}
 
-Concept Assessment Criteria:
+Scoring Criteria:
 
 Subject Matter Accuracy:
 ✓ Score 1 if ALL:
-- No significant technical errors
-- Concepts explained with precise terminology
-- Clear distinction between facts and opinions
+- Demonstrates deep technical knowledge
+- Uses precise terminology
+- Explains concepts accurately
 ✗ Score 0 if ANY:
-- Contains technical inaccuracies
-- Uses imprecise or incorrect terminology
-- Mixes facts with unsupported claims
+- Contains technical errors
+- Uses imprecise terminology
+- Misrepresents concepts
 
 First Principles Approach:
 ✓ Score 1 if ALL:
 - Starts with fundamental concepts
 - Builds complexity systematically
-- Clear connections between basic and advanced concepts
+- Shows clear concept relationships
 ✗ Score 0 if ANY:
-- Jumps to advanced concepts without foundation
+- Skips fundamental concepts
+- Presents concepts randomly
 - Missing logical progression
-- Unclear connections between concepts
 
 Examples and Business Context:
 ✓ Score 1 if ALL:
-- At least 2 relevant, detailed examples
-- Clear business context for each example
-- Examples directly support learning objectives
+- Provides 2+ relevant examples
+- Links to business applications
+- Shows practical value
 ✗ Score 0 if ANY:
-- Fewer than 2 examples
-- Examples lack business context
-- Examples don't clearly support learning
+- Lacks concrete examples
+- Missing business context
+- Examples don't support learning
 
 Cohesive Storytelling:
 ✓ Score 1 if ALL:
@@ -521,68 +553,65 @@ Cohesive Storytelling:
 - Logical topic transitions
 - Consistent theme throughout
 ✗ Score 0 if ANY:
-- Disjointed narrative
+- Disjointed presentation
 - Abrupt topic changes
-- Inconsistent theme
+- Lacks coherent flow
 
 Engagement and Interaction:
 ✓ Score 1 if ALL:
-- Regular audience engagement
-- Effective use of questions
-- Clear response to audience cues
+- Asks engaging questions
+- Encourages participation
+- Responds to audience
 ✗ Score 0 if ANY:
-- Minimal audience interaction
 - One-way lecture style
-- Misses engagement opportunities
+- No audience interaction
+- Ignores engagement opportunities
 
 Professional Tone:
 ✓ Score 1 if ALL:
-- Consistently professional language
-- Appropriate level of formality
-- Clear and confident delivery
+- Maintains formal language
+- Speaks confidently
+- Clear and articulate
 ✗ Score 0 if ANY:
-- Casual or inappropriate language
-- Inconsistent formality
-- Uncertain or unclear delivery
-
-Code Assessment Criteria:
+- Uses casual language
+- Shows uncertainty
+- Unclear delivery
 
 Depth of Explanation:
 ✓ Score 1 if ALL:
-- Explains code purpose and structure
+- Explains code purpose
 - Covers implementation details
-- Addresses potential issues/alternatives
+- Discusses alternatives
 ✗ Score 0 if ANY:
 - Surface-level explanation
-- Missing implementation details
-- No discussion of alternatives
+- Missing key details
+- No alternative approaches
 
 Output Interpretation:
 ✓ Score 1 if ALL:
-- Clear explanation of expected outputs
-- Error handling discussion
-- Performance implications covered
+- Explains expected results
+- Covers error cases
+- Discusses performance
 ✗ Score 0 if ANY:
 - Unclear output expectations
-- No error handling discussion
-- Missing performance context
+- No error handling
+- Ignores performance
 
 Breaking down Complexity:
 ✓ Score 1 if ALL:
-- Complex concepts broken into digestible parts
-- Clear step-by-step explanation
-- Logical progression of difficulty
+- Divides complex concepts
+- Step-by-step explanation
+- Clear progression
 ✗ Score 0 if ANY:
 - Overwhelming complexity
-- Missing steps in explanation
-- Illogical difficulty progression
-
-Important Notes:
-- Each criterion is evaluated independently
-- Citations must directly support scoring decision
-- No partial credit - must meet ALL requirements for a score of 1
-- Look for explicit evidence in transcript
-- Different criteria can receive different scores based on evidence"""
+- Missing steps
+- Unclear progression
+
+Important:
+- Each citation must include timestamp and exact quote
+- Score 1 requires meeting ALL criteria
+- Score 0 if ANY criterion not met
+- Use specific evidence from transcript"""
 
         return prompt_template.format(
             transcript=transcript,