New York's career standard, criterion by criterion: 11 of 16 matched, 5 not claimed.

The plan itself is the school's document, not ours, and New York's verb is "continue" — the plan already exists from the elementary level and the district is holding it. We supply what goes into it. Two things a reviewer should know before scoring this row: the Intermediate Core Curriculum spells out what New York expects a career plan to contain, and of its five key elements — personal data, knowledge, skills and application, a culminating activity, and a review of the plan — we contribute to the second and third and touch none of the other three. And the state expects that plan to be reviewed, which is a conversation between a student and an adult, not a file.

This is the row the product was built for, and it is direct because the relationship the criterion asks a student to demonstrate is the thing the result page draws: the interest profile on one side, the skills profile on the other, and the careers they point at in between, all from the student's own answers with no teacher step in the middle. The honest limit is on the third term. "Career research" in New York's sense is broader than reading a match list — the Intermediate Core Curriculum expects a student to use a variety of sources, and we are one. A student who only ever uses us has done the relationship, not the breadth.

The gap between this row and the one above it is the word "successful". PI2 is about matching yourself to a career; PI3 is about what makes someone last in it, and the state's own examples for it are punctuality, dependability, integrity, getting along with others and working cooperatively in groups. We measure those as traits and hand back a score. What we cannot do is show a student their own punctuality or dependability over a term — that is observed in a classroom or a work-based learning placement, and the teacher is the one holding the evidence.

Half of this criterion is ours and half of it is not, and the half that is not is the half New York put first. Educational requirements we hold: 1,020 of the 2,749 careers in the corpus carry an education tier, measured 2026-09-06, and a student can filter the list by it. The changing nature of work — what global competition and technology have done to specific occupations, which is exactly what New York's elementary column asks students to describe and this column builds on — is not in the product at all. Our corpus has no time dimension of any kind: no growth rate, no projection, no openings, no history. A career page can tell a student what an occupation requires today and nothing about where it is going.

What a school assigns at /assessments/values is PVQ-21, which measures what a person prioritises rather than what they should choose, and putting it beside the wage and education tier of the careers it points at is a real basis for the discussion this criterion wants. But the criterion is about consequence over time — a choice made now shaping a decision later — and that arc runs through a student's actual coursework, electives and out-of-school commitments. None of those are ours; the school holds the timetable, and the teacher runs the conversation that connects one to the other.

No JobCannon surface addresses this criterion. We are not naming a workaround for it.

The subject of this criterion is the school's own curriculum. It asks a student to take what they are being taught across several academic disciplines and apply it to a work-related situation — the state's examples are a promotional campaign drawing on art, music and language arts, or a project spanning two disciplines to produce a news-media presentation. We do not hold what a student is being taught, we do not run projects, and buying an assessment platform does not make an interdisciplinary unit exist. There is also a reach in the criterion we could not meet even in principle: it asks for relevance demonstrated in international communities, and our careers corpus is United States occupational data throughout.

No JobCannon surface addresses this criterion. We are not naming a workaround for it.

This one looks closer than it is, and a reviewer will want the distinction stated rather than guessed. Our reasoning assessments do put problems in front of a student — Numerical Reasoning has arithmetic, percentages and ratios, number sequences and data interpretation; Verbal Reasoning has vocabulary, analogies, reading comprehension and verbal logic. They are not this criterion. New York files this under Integrated Learning, where the point is applying what the student is learning in class to something outside it. A timed multiple-choice item measures whether a skill is present; it does not have the student apply it to anything. Claiming this row would be scoring our own test against a criterion about the classroom.

No JobCannon surface addresses this criterion. We are not naming a workaround for it.

Both halves are outside the product. The occupational context is a placement, a shadowing day or a simulated workplace the school arranges. The second half is more specific still: the student must demonstrate through a variety of communication techniques, and the state names sign language, pictures, videos and reports. We produce one artefact in one medium — a result page a student reads. The variety is the assignment, and the assignment is the teacher's.

New York files this key idea as Basic Skills and defines it as reading, writing, listening and speaking plus arithmetic. We measure two of those five. Verbal Reasoning covers reading comprehension, vocabulary, analogies and verbal logic; Numerical Reasoning covers arithmetic, percentages and ratios, number sequences and data interpretation. Listening, speaking and writing are not assessed anywhere in the product — every item is multiple choice, so nothing a student produces is read by anyone. Two further gaps in the criterion's own wording: acquiring information from a variety of sources is a research task, and "in oral or written form" is a production requirement. The teacher closes all of that.

Direct because this key idea, unlike its Basic Skills neighbour, is entirely about reasoning applied to a presented problem — and that is exactly the shape of a psychometric item. Logical Reasoning covers the three verbs in order: syllogisms and conditional logic for evaluating facts, deductive inference and analytical puzzles for solving problems, and Situational Judgement puts the student in scenarios where they choose a course of action. No teacher step is needed for the result to exist. The limit worth naming is the word "advanced": these are middle-school-level items, sized for the intermediate band the criterion sits in, not a measure of ceiling.

New York files this key idea as Personal Qualities and defines it as self-management and the ability to plan, organise and take independent action. We measure the disposition; the criterion asks the student to demonstrate it. Every sample task the state gives is an act in the world — running a fund-raiser, volunteering with a local charity, working with other students to improve something about the school — and none of those becomes true because a score exists. The first half of the criterion, the relationship between individuals and society, is civics content we do not carry at all.

Conflict Styles is a genuinely useful input here, because the criterion is specifically about dissent — listening to a point of view you disagree with and still reaching a shared decision — and a student who knows their own default has something to work with. But every verb in this criterion is performed with other people: work with, present, listen, reach. A self-report profile is the preparation for that, not the evidence of it. The state's own sample tasks say the same thing — reacting positively to constructive criticism, working as a member of a team toward a common goal — and both are observed by a teacher.

We measure whether a student knows the tools; the criterion is about choosing one for a task and finishing the task with it. The state's examples make the distinction plain — using a telecommunications service to check airline schedules for a trip, using word-processing software to make an enquiry to a business — each is a task with an outcome, and the technology is picked to serve it. Our assessments are multiple choice about technology rather than work done with it, so the profile tells a teacher who is ready for such a task and does not substitute for setting one.

No JobCannon surface addresses this criterion. We are not naming a workaround for it.

The criterion turns on the student choosing the format and then producing in it — the state asks for a financial report presented to a group, a chart or graph designed to track progress toward a goal, a completed job application. The product goes the other way: we choose the format, we produce the artefact, and the student reads it. Nothing in JobCannon asks a student to make anything, and no output of ours is a student's own work. This is a flat no rather than a partial.

Two of the three resource types the criterion names are reachable. Personal Finance Literacy covers budgeting basics and saving, which is the financial one; Time Management covers planning and scheduling, which is how the state's own examples frame the human and time elements — formulating a budget for a lawn-mowing or snow-removal round, creating and following a personal schedule. Material resources are not assessed anywhere. And the criterion is set in the context of a planned activity that the student actually carries out, which is the teacher's to set up.

No JobCannon surface addresses this criterion. We are not naming a workaround for it.

This is organisational-systems content and we have none of it. The state's examples are surveying teachers to develop modifications to a school discipline policy, watching how a store handles customer returns over a period and proposing improvements, describing how an ecosystem functions — all of them observation of a real system followed by a proposal to change it. Nothing in the product models an organisation, and no assessment we run touches systems thinking. A district should read this as an unambiguous gap.