Evidence Alignment and Transfer Boundaries in Ai Educational Assessment And Built-Environment Evaluation

Abstract

The literature on AI educational assessment and built-environment evaluation contains a recurring tension between methodological novelty and evidential comparability. By reading AI-based student-performance prediction as a case study in educational assessment alongside post-occupancy evaluation and mechanism diagnosis for rural construction, this article clarifies the conditions under which their conclusions can support a common research argument. Two target papers are triangulated against 12 locally validated publications. The comparison follows construct validity, data drift, fairness, explainability, teacher oversight and deliberately separates mechanistic interpretation from performance ranking, because the latter can conceal incompatible experimental or operational conditions. Comparison reveals recurring trade-offs among construct validity, data drift, and fairness. These trade-offs do not support a universal ranking; instead, they identify the operating envelope within which each method remains credible and the perturbations most likely to expose fragile conclusions. On this basis, the review proposes an auditable pathway from focal mechanism to application claim, with explicit checkpoints for calibration, external validity, and responsible interpretation.