Assistive & Accessible AI · Capstone brief
ACC-05 · Executive function scaffolds
Build or evaluate a planning scaffold; test whether it reduces load or adds compliance theater.
The question
Build or evaluate a planning scaffold; test whether it reduces load or adds compliance theater.
Partners / materials
One planning/EF scaffold (student-built or existing AI planner). Task set with measurable load indicators (steps completed, time-to-start, abandonment, self-report load). Consented peers or self-as-user only when labeled honestly — not as a disability partner stand-in.
Expected failure modes
More screens = more support. Measuring only whether the checklist was filled. Ignoring that the scaffold became the homework.
Done looks like
Scaffold or evaluation; load results; “theater vs help” judgment with criteria declared first; revision or kill recommendation.
Five C's
CT: load vs theater. CR: pre-declared indicators. CO: peer uses the scaffold once cold. CM: one-page teacher note. CZ: the student whose working memory is the stake.
Mentor role
Special-ed or counselor-adviser reviews indicators. School-supervised.
Rubric calibration
R1: one scaffold, one task set. R2: indicators defined. R3: unaided baseline. R4: theater risks named. R5: note usable. R6: kill option is real.
Two ways this goes wrong
(a) A beautiful planner nobody finishes using. (b) Compliance charts with no load measure.
Credit lane fit
Lane A immediately. No verified credit claim.