> ## Documentation Index
> Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.realtalkstudio.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

# How scoring & feedback works

> What admins should know about session scores and skill ratings — for answering learner and stakeholder questions

This guide explains **how Real Talk Studio scores a session**. Share it with client admins, L\&D leads, and programme managers when someone asks *"How is my score calculated?"*

<Note>
  This page covers **1:1 roleplay** — the most common session type. Team roleplay and presentation practice follow similar principles but may differ in detail.
</Note>

***

## The short answer

Scoring has two ingredients:

**1. What you set up in the scenario**\
When authoring a scenario, you define a **learning objective** and up to **three skills** — each with a name and description. Optionally you can add good/bad examples and specific achievements to look for. This is the foundation: the session is scored against *your* criteria, not a generic checklist.

**2. What happened in the conversation**\
When the session ends, the transcript is reviewed for **evidence** that the learner demonstrated those skills and met the learning objective.

From that review, learners receive:

* **A rating for each skill** — from Novice to Expert, with examples and tips
* **An overall score out of 100** — how well they met the learning objective as a whole
* **Highlighted moments** from the conversation — where they did well and where they could improve

Scoring rewards **meaningful engagement and demonstrated competence**, not length alone. Very short sessions or conversations that never get going will score low or may not receive full feedback at all.

***

## Ingredient 1 — Skills and the learning objective

Everything starts with how the scenario is configured.

| What you define                         | Why it matters                                                    |
| --------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------- |
| **Learning objective**                  | The main goal of the conversation — what success looks like       |
| **Skills** (up to 3)                    | Specific behaviours to look for, each with a name and description |
| **Good / bad examples** *(optional)*    | Help illustrate what strong or weak demonstration looks like      |
| **Achievements** *(optional)*           | Specific outcomes to check for — useful in compliance scenarios   |
| **Minimum session length** *(optional)* | Ensures there is enough conversation to assess fairly             |

<Tip>
  Write skill descriptions that describe **observable behaviour** — what someone would actually say or do in the conversation — rather than abstract traits like "good communicator."
</Tip>

See [Scenario creation](/feature-overview/scenario-creation) for the full authoring workflow.

***

## Ingredient 2 — Reviewing the transcript

When the session finishes, the conversation transcript is analysed for evidence of the skills in action and progress toward the learning objective.

The review looks at **what the learner said and did** — not what they intended. Strong, consistent demonstration across the conversation leads to higher ratings. One good moment on its own is usually not enough.

Learners also see **key moments** pulled from their conversation — where a skill was demonstrated well, or where there was a missed opportunity. The full transcript is always available for admins and reviewers.

***

## What learners receive

### Per-skill rating (Novice → Expert)

Each skill gets one of five levels:

| Rating           | In plain terms                         |
| ---------------- | -------------------------------------- |
| **Novice**       | Struggled to demonstrate the skill     |
| **Beginner**     | Some understanding, but inconsistent   |
| **Intermediate** | Effective in places, room to improve   |
| **Advanced**     | Applied well, minor refinements needed |
| **Expert**       | Strong, consistent mastery             |

Each rating comes with specific examples from the conversation, strengths, and practical tips for next time.

### Overall score (0–100)

This is a **separate assessment** of how well the learner met the **learning objective** across the whole conversation. It is **not** a simple average of the skill ratings.

In general:

* **Low scores (roughly below 50)** — limited engagement, missed the objective, or significant gaps in execution
* **Mid scores (roughly 50–70)** — partial success, some skills shown but inconsistent
* **Strong scores (roughly 70–89)** — clear progress toward the objective, skills applied well
* **Exceptional scores (90+)** — outstanding performance; intentionally hard to achieve

Each score includes a short explanation of why it was given.

***

## What affects the score — and what does not

### What matters

* Engaging meaningfully with the scenario topic
* Demonstrating the defined skills through what they actually said
* Consistency across the conversation, not just one strong reply
* Appropriate tone and professionalism for the situation

### What does not automatically help

* **Longer conversations do not automatically score higher.** A long but unfocused session can still score poorly. What counts is the quality of engagement, not the word count.
* **The overall score is not an average of skill ratings.** A learner could do well on one skill but still miss the broader objective.
* **Very short sessions** may not receive full feedback. Scenarios can require a minimum session length, and sessions with almost no content will score at or near zero.

***

## Common questions

<AccordionGroup>
  <Accordion title="Does a longer conversation automatically score higher?">
    No. Length gives more to assess, but quality matters more than quantity. A focused session that meets the minimum can score well; a long, unfocused one can score poorly.
  </Accordion>

  <Accordion title="Is the overall score an average of the skill ratings?">
    No. The 0–100 score and the per-skill ratings are assessed independently. They usually align, but not always — a learner might demonstrate one skill well yet miss the overall objective.
  </Accordion>

  <Accordion title="Why did someone get a very low score or no feedback?">
    Usually because the session was too short, contained only greetings, or the learner did not engage with the topic. These sessions do not provide enough evidence to assess fairly.
  </Accordion>

  <Accordion title="Why is it hard to get 90+?">
    Scores in the 90s are reserved for truly exceptional performance — full mastery of the objective and consistent skill demonstration throughout. Most strong sessions land in the 70s or 80s.
  </Accordion>

  <Accordion title="Can two similar sessions get different scores?">
    Scores reflect a specific conversation. Like human coaching, two sessions of similar quality may receive slightly different scores depending on the evidence in each transcript.
  </Accordion>
</AccordionGroup>

***

## Suggested talking points

When a learner or line manager asks about their score:

1. **The score reflects the learning objective** — not attendance, effort alone, or how long they talked.
2. **Skills are defined upfront** — the scenario author decides what good looks like for that conversation.
3. **Feedback is evidence-based** — ratings and highlights refer to specific moments from the conversation.
4. **Low scores are actionable** — learners get concrete next steps and can practise again immediately.
5. **Practise again is the point** — a score measures one moment in time; improvement comes from repeated practice.

***

## Related

* [Feedback & evidence](/feature-overview/feedback-and-evidence) — what learners see after a session
* [Scenario creation](/feature-overview/scenario-creation) — how to configure skills and objectives
* [Admin & organizations](/feature-overview/admin-and-organizations) — session history, analytics, and exports