Arizona's grade 6-8 eCTE career standard, criterion by criterion: 29 of 39 matched, 10 not claimed.

Glossary — five ADE-matched definitions: /glossary/occupation, /glossary/job, /glossary/career, /glossary/career-cluster, /glossary/career-pathway.

Four vocabulary definitions a student reads and can quote back — the vocabulary the rest of the standard depends on.

Career cluster facet on /careers/search — the actual Advance CTE National Career Clusters® Framework (14 clusters), not JobCannon's own internal grouping. 2,652 of 2,749 careers mapped (96.5%).

A filtered list of real occupations inside whichever cluster the student picks.

Every career page — Required Skills (92.0% of 2,521 curated careers), Core Responsibilities (91.8%), career-ladder levels (100%), filterable by cluster.

A skills-and-responsibilities readout for any occupation the student searches.

Values (21 items), Values Compass mini (10 items), Big Five (50 items) — all directly assignable from a class dashboard.

A personal values/traits result the student reads and discusses in class.

RIASEC full (60 items), Career Match — mini RIASEC, forced-choice (12 items), O*NET Interest Profiler (60 items).

A ranked list of interest areas, linked straight into the cluster-filterable career library — literally “identify two or three career areas of interest” in one screen.

The wage chip and sourcing footnote on every career page — salaries 98.8% of 2,749 careers (BLS OEWS median, federal occupation named beside every figure), job responsibilities 91.8%, skills 92.0%.

A federal median wage, named responsibilities and required skills for any occupation of interest.

Grade-8 lesson “Three careers, one plan.” The platform supplies the career pages naming what each occupation needs; the teacher supplies the district's 9th-grade course catalogue — the platform does not hold one and does not pretend to.

A one-page, student-authored plan naming the ninth-grade courses that move toward three chosen occupations.

The same “Three careers, one plan” lesson. Criterion 1.8 is met by what the student writes in the 45-minute period, not by anything the platform generates — a plan a system wrote for the student would not satisfy the standard or be worth keeping.

The completed plan page itself: three occupations, what each needs, courses to take, one thing to do before June.

The Personal Finance Literacy test (24 scored items, shipped 2026-09-05). The criterion's three emphases are two purpose-built subscales and the items that span them: Budgeting Basics (indices 0-7) and Saving & Investing (indices 8-15). Budgeting — what a budget compares, needs vs. wants, naming a shortfall, fixed expenses. Financial management — tracking a month before budgeting, “pay yourself first”, gross vs. net on a first paycheck, what to do when a category is nearly spent, why an emergency fund precedes investing. Investing — compound interest, savings account vs. stock market, spreading money across companies, starting early, what “risky” means. Written for grade 6-8: mean Flesch-Kincaid 4.8 across the stems, 4.0 across the options; 401(k) is the only adult term and is explained inline.

A scored result with a level per subscale, which the student reads back as a description of their own financial literacy across the three areas the criterion names.

The Financial Accounting test (28 scenario questions) scores six subscales — debits and credits, the income statement, the balance sheet, accrual vs. cash accounting, depreciation, and working capital. That covers “accounting” solidly and “finance” partially through financial-statement mechanics; nothing in the product addresses the broader “conducting a business” half (marketing, operations, staffing, legal structure).

A scored accounting-literacy result the student reads and discusses in class — not a description of running a business.

Grade-7 lesson “Interests are not a verdict.” The platform supplies the Values (PVQ-21) result (21 portrait items) and the prior lesson's interest result; the teacher runs the ranking-and-discussion half — the platform measures values and interests, it does not teach a student to weigh them against each other.

A personal ranking of eight work-life factors, compared against the Values result and against two contrasting adult profiles with the same interest area.

Grade-8 lesson “What does it actually pay, and who says so?” Real BLS median wages now sit beside education level on the same career page, so the two halves of this criterion are on one screen.

A written record of one occupation's real median wage, the federal occupation it belongs to, and how it compares to the student's own guess.

The Personal Finance Literacy test, Job Benefits subscale (indices 16-23, 8 scored items). Every one of the six benefits the criterion names in its own parenthesis is a scored item: health insurance, life insurance, retirement plans (a 401(k), named and explained inline for a 12-to-14 audience), career development (an employer paying for a course), college assistance (tuition assistance), and better salaries (a $36,000 job with no benefits weighed against a $34,000 job with health cover). Two further items frame the set.

A scored result showing whether the student can name what job benefits are and weigh salary against them.

No single JobCannon test is built for 3.1 by name, and no lesson plan cites it directly — this is the least direct of the seven. Every JobCannon assessment is itself a structured self-evaluation with a written result; a teacher frames the exercise of reading, questioning and defending that result as a named critical-thinking technique.

A written self-evaluation result the student has to read, question and defend to peers — the closest in-platform proxy for a critical-thinking artifact, not a purpose-built one.

DISC (12 items) and Big Five (50 items) give the personal-model half directly. Connecting that model explicitly to “career opportunities” is a teacher-led classroom step, not an in-platform feature.

A DISC and/or Big Five profile the student compares against a specific career decision in class discussion.

Conflict Styles names “conflict resolution” directly (Thomas-Kilmann model, five strategies) and EQ scores “emotional intelligence” directly (Empathy, Social Skills subscales) — two of the criterion's ten named skills. The other eight (delegation, managing priorities, meeting expectations, cooperative spirit, open-mindedness, mutual respect, active listening, understanding perspectives) have no purpose-built assessment.

A Conflict Styles and/or EQ result naming two of the ten collaborative skills the criterion lists, discussed in class against the other eight.

Character Strengths scores and names “Teamwork” and “Leadership” as explicit subscales; Work Ethics scores “Dependability,” which matches “reliability” closely. “Motivation” and “problem-solving” are only loosely approximated by other subscales (Zest, Judgment), never named as such.

A Character Strengths and/or Work Ethics result naming two of the criterion's four teamwork skills directly.

The Communication Adaptability test — Interpersonal vs. Communication Skills subscale, 6 scored items. The distinction is asked in both directions, the explicit misconception “they are the same thing” is corrected, and one item scores the criterion's second clause: why a workplace needs both rather than one.

A scored result naming which of the two skill families the student reliably tells apart, with the workplace rationale scored rather than asserted.

The Communication Adaptability test — Audience & Purpose subscale, 6 scored items covering every audience the criterion names: peer, teacher, employer, and formal versus informal register. Each item puts two readers or two purposes side by side, which is the criterion's “compare and contrast” in the item format itself.

A scored result showing how far the student shifts register between the four audiences the criterion names.

The Communication Adaptability test — Culture, Generation & Distance subscale, 6 scored items covering all three differences the criterion names. ADE's verb is “Discuss”: the platform scores whether the student recognises the effect, the teacher runs the discussion — nothing in the product runs or scaffolds one, the same reason 7.1 sits in this tier.

A scored sub-result on cultural, generational and geographical differences that a teacher uses as the opening evidence for a class discussion.

The Communication Adaptability test — Professional Mediums subscale, one scored item per medium the criterion names (email, business letter, resume, text, social media) plus one on choosing the medium that leaves a written record. ADE's verb is “Practice”: the student picks the better-formed message rather than writing one, so the teacher supplies the writing half — the same recognition-versus-production limit already recorded for 6.3.

A scored sub-result per medium, which the teacher pairs with the student actually writing one of the five.

Same career cluster facet as 1.2, plus the technology and tools named on each career page. A student filters to a cluster and reads what technology each occupation inside it actually uses — rests on the same coverage as 1.2/1.3, so it stands or falls with those two.

A named piece of technology or software used in an occupation inside the student's chosen cluster.

The Computer Literacy test scores scenario questions on email, Word, Excel and PowerPoint directly. The criterion's verb is “demonstrate”; this product tests whether a student can pick the correct technique among four options, not build the report, deck or sheet themselves.

A scored result showing which of the email/Word/Excel/PowerPoint scenarios the student answered correctly — recognition, not hands-on production.

The Digital Ethics & Citizenship test scores the criterion's three named examples as its three subscales — misuse of data, misinformation, and artificial intelligence — and ten of its twenty-four items ask the taker to name which ethical issue a situation contains, using the criterion's own verb. Built for this criterion in September 2026, after a measured pass over the whole test catalogue found none that asked a student to identify an ethical issue at all.

A scored result with three named subscale scores and a criterion-referenced band, showing which ethical issues in technology the student identified correctly.

Work Ethics scores Accountability and Integrity as named subscales from 20 first-person items, giving the student a working definition of each plus a personal read against it. Classroom discussion of their “importance in the workplace” is not itself taught by the product.

An Accountability/Integrity result the student compares against the platform's own definitions of both terms.

DISC, EQ (10 items) and Work Ethics (20 items) results, discussed against workplace scenarios the teacher supplies.

A behavioral / EQ / work-ethics profile the student relates to a specific workplace scenario in class.

Situational Judgement's “Integrity & Ownership” subscale scores workplace ethics scenarios — an irregular expense claim, a colleague taking credit for someone else's idea, softening an honest report, skipping a required verification step. The criterion's three named examples — confidentiality, race/ethnicity, employment discrimination — are not covered by any scenario.

A scored Integrity & Ownership result built from four ethics scenarios, discussed in class against the three named examples the product doesn't cover.

Physical half excluded (demonstrate, attendance, dress, cleanliness — in-person presence). The Time Management test (8 items) gives a tiered, plain-language description of the student's actual time-management habits — e.g. high band: “You plan ahead, protect your priorities, and rarely let the urgent crowd out the important”; the low band names a concrete next step. That closes the “describe... time management” slice of the criterion's example list. “Attitude” and “performance” are not addressed by any product surface.

A tiered Time Management result the student reads as a description of their own work habits — one of six named examples, and the only non-physical one this platform can speak to.

The Digital Ethics & Citizenship test's digital-citizenship and social-media-safety subscale covers the criterion's content directly — group-chat conduct, consent before posting, reporting rather than escalating, and how long a post outlives the moment — at the grade 6-8 register ADE names. The criterion's verb is “engage in”, which is observed conduct; this product scores which response a student selects, the same distance that keeps 6.3 out of the direct column.

A scored subscale showing which safe, legal and respectful responses the student chose across social-media and group-chat scenarios — selected response, not observed conduct.