Academic reading question generator

An MVP, or minimum viable product, is the smallest version that your users can actually work with. It is not a cheap version of the full solution. It is a test, built to answer the questions that decide whether the rest is worth building.

1. Pick the riskiest assumption. Here: will university study-support services use it to solve "students skim papers without forming useful questions"?
2. Build only what tests it. One team, one use case, a few core modules. People do the rest by hand for now.
3. Run a paid pilot. Agree the acceptance criteria, input limits and reviewer responsibilities before starting.
4. Measure, then decide. Track evidence-based response quality; reviewer correction minutes; buyer acceptance and repeat purchase. Then expand, change course or stop, with evidence instead of opinions.

MVP scope for this solution. Costed pilot: One organization, one defined input format and one representative pilot batch using licensed readings and educator objectives. Professional judgment, physical inspections, live external actions and production certification remain outside this prototype. Start with one buyer organization and a bounded set of representative inputs. Implement the first two modules: map argument claims; draft evidence questions. Support the third task through an assisted review queue: compare student responses. Handle the remaining required functions manually until validated. Include input upload, source references, user correction, a reviewer approval step and export of educator-reviewed reading activity. Authentication, account isolation, deletion controls and basic operational logging are included. Specialized production certification, live write integrations and broader rollout are not included unless explicitly stated.

After the MVP. After paying customers repeatedly accept educator-reviewed reading activity, automate link proposed outputs to original source records; capture reviewer corrections and approval; export a versioned educator-reviewed reading activity. Add one tested read integration, reusable customer configuration and scheduled repeat delivery. Increase supported formats or teams only when evaluation cases and reviewer capacity cover the new scope. One organization, one defined input format and one representative pilot batch using licensed readings and educator objectives. Professional judgment, physical inspections, live external actions and production certification remain outside this prototype.

What the build depends on. Clear objectives, licensed or approved sources, validated assessments, learner state and source-change tracking. Media and accessibility requirements affect production effort. Obtain representative authorized inputs, an agreed review rubric and a buyer-side owner. Specific scope: One organization, one defined input format and one representative pilot batch using licensed readings and educator objectives. Professional judgment, physical inspections, live external actions and production certification remain outside this prototype.

Pricing to test

Test USD 750-3,000 for one custom learning pathway, then USD 10-40 per active learner monthly with a minimum account fee. Public memberships may use lower fixed subscriptions. Prices are experiments, not benchmarks. For this buyer, package the first sale around prepare a sample educator-reviewed reading activity from a small authorized set of licensed readings and educator objectives and the defined educator-reviewed reading activity. Record actual review effort before offering a recurring allowance. The commercial pilot fee is distinct from the platform development budget.

Message to test

Active reading grounded in the assigned text. Demonstrate the result with prepare a sample educator-reviewed reading activity from a small authorized set of licensed readings and educator objectives for university study-support services. Use a concrete before-and-after example without promising unmeasured savings.

Where to find buyers

Educator associations and specialist training providers

Lead magnet

Prepare a sample educator-reviewed reading activity from a small authorized set of licensed readings and educator objectives

The first 30 days

1. Week 1: interview five prospective buyers from university study-support services and inspect how they handle students skim papers without forming useful questions.
2. Week 2: prepare prepare a sample educator-reviewed reading activity from a small authorized set of licensed readings and educator objectives using authorized or synthetic material.
3. Week 3: share the demonstration through educator associations and specialist training providers and seek one bounded paid pilot.
4. Week 4: measure evidence-based response quality; reviewer correction minutes; buyer acceptance and repeat purchase, review delivery effort and ask for a repeat purchase. This is a validation schedule, not a promise that the full product can be built in thirty days.

Paid pilot

Agree the acceptance criteria, input limits and reviewer responsibilities before starting. Run prepare a sample educator-reviewed reading activity from a small authorized set of licensed readings and educator objectives and deliver educator-reviewed reading activity. Compare evidence-based response quality; reviewer correction minutes; buyer acceptance and repeat purchase with the buyer's current process on comparable cases; include corrections, missed issues and reviewer time. Seek payment and repeat use. Stop or revise the scope if data access, accuracy or unit economics fail.

Success metrics

Evidence-based response quality; reviewer correction minutes; buyer acceptance and repeat purchase

Retention and expansion

Build repeat use around educator-reviewed reading activity. Save approved configurations and review decisions with permission, revisit unresolved exceptions and show progress on evidence-based response quality; reviewer correction minutes; buyer acceptance and repeat purchase. Offer a recurring volume allowance after repeat demand; expand to adjacent tasks only when the buyer asks and delivery quality remains acceptable.

Why clients would pick it

A reviewed niche curriculum, realistic practice tasks and evidence of useful learning outcomes in a defined role. For this concept, accumulate permissioned examples and reviewer corrections around active reading grounded in the assigned text. The durable asset is reliable task-specific execution and trusted customer configuration, not access to a general-purpose AI model.

Alternatives and positioning

Courses, internal trainers, learning management systems and static training documents. Position this concept around active reading grounded in the assigned text. Compare it against the customer's current process on the same representative task. This is proposed differentiation; no exhaustive competitor study or uniqueness claim has been established.

Main delivery costs

Instructional design, subject review, media production, assessment validation, learner support and content refreshes. Initial validation additionally budgets for representative sample preparation, interviews with university study-support services, and buyer-side review of educator-reviewed reading activity. Track model usage, storage, reviewer minutes, exception handling and customer support per accepted deliverable.