Follow-up support shows low initiation but reliable completion: the bottleneck is noticing and composing the question, not the AI's ability to answer¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · design r3 · q2
Currency · no dated study recorded · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Across 140 result-screen runs, students opened the follow-up interface 14 times (10.0%) and submitted 12 follow-up questions (8.6%), but all 12 submitted follow-ups reached first content. → followup-funnel

Evidence¶

followup-funnel¶

Harry Feng, Yuan Tian, and Erica Zhao. 2026. From Answer Generators to Reasoning Facilitators: Designing AI Tutors for Mathematical Reasoning in High-Stakes Environments. https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.01692 doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.01692

q2 · i? · design · r3

Telemetry funnel analysis from the 12-day field deployment (7,379 backend events across 104 valid sessions). The article reports "students opened the follow-up interface 14 times (10.0%)" and that all 12 submitted questions reached first content, so the bottleneck was initiation.

"Across 140 result-screen runs, students opened the follow-up interface 14 times (10.0%) and submitted 12 follow-up questions (8.6%, Figure 7)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• DysLexLens achieves a mean Answer Relevancy of 0.75 across 30 responses to research questions and follow-ups on dyslexia-AI Reddit data — related
• System reliability and latency acted as a prerequisite bottleneck: 56.4% of started solves completed, with a 32.0-second average latency and 68.5-second p90 — related
• Distress and depression screening improved detection but did not reliably enhance psychological or medical outcomes when follow-up pathways were absent — related
• Students rarely open transfer-practice cards immediately after solving; they want such problems organized into delayed, spaced wrong-book review instead — related