Interaction review

Content interactions capture observation-level detail for a learning item. An operator can record the sequence, description, observed date, outcome and completion percentage for a playback or quiz event. Each line belongs to its parent learning content record. Reviewers can assess the interaction evidence alongside the item revision instead of relying on a summary that hides which activity was accepted or rejected.

An interaction line can begin pending and receive an accepted or rejected outcome. Source references help the team reconcile a line with the event or import that supplied it. The interaction date and observed date serve different purposes: one identifies when the interaction happened, while the other can identify when it was observed or entered. The team should agree how to use those dates in its reporting.

• Keep the parent clear. Attach each observation to the learning item it concerns.
• Use sequence deliberately. Order related observations so a reviewer can follow a playback or quiz path.
• Explain rejected outcomes. Make the description and source reference detailed enough for a correction.

Define which player or assessment system will send interaction information, what qualifies as accepted, and who checks a rejected result. Decide whether a completion percentage is recorded for every line or only for specific interaction types. Agree how a repeated source record is identified before importing another batch. Prepare a small example with a pending line, an accepted line and a rejected line under the same content item.

A course item has a video segment followed by a quiz. The operator records a playback observation, then a quiz interaction. The playback line has a completion percentage; the quiz line has its own outcome. The reviewer can open the content item and inspect the child interaction strip to see the order and source of those observations.

Suppose a second quiz event arrives with the same source identifier. The operator checks the existing source record before treating it as a new observation. If the outcome differs, the operator examines the source reference and interaction date, then records the correction under the appropriate content revision. The reviewer should be able to tell which line supports the decision and which remains pending.

Rehearse the case from both roles. Have the operator locate pending interactions, resolve one line and explain why another was rejected. Have the reviewer open the parent item and compare the line outcomes with the decision being made. If an external player is involved, test the source reference with a real sample payload and document who resolves a mismatch before publication.

• Interaction outcomes — Observations grouped by outcome and linked to the learning item.
• Pending interactions — Lines still awaiting an outcome from the operator.

Capture and review interactions before revision review. Review integrations for external event feeds.