[carapace]

First, thanks for taking the time to respond. Like I said, I do hope I'm wrong.

I will admit, this does seem like a pretty good use for computers.

I just I hope it's not part of the slippery slope to letting machines do our thinking for us. (Then again, what if they do a better job than we do!?)

I'm curious about how you detect and correct problems with the machine material? E.g. the (presumably automatic) error of substituting "phantom" for "fathom"?

Does your machine take a overconfident stance, or does it understand its own limits and help the child to know that it is not infallible?