LensLens
Book a Demo

For analysts and policy teams

Check the claim against the record, before it reaches the board.

A strategic plan says third-grade literacy is up. A grant application cites an enrollment trend. A vendor promises an outcome. Lens reads the filings, the reports and the data behind each one and shows you what holds up.

Book a demo
Does spaced repetition improve long-term retention in undergraduates?Scholarly + Web
Yes. Spaced review outperforms massed study for durable retention, with the largest gains when the gap between sessions scales to the target retention interval[ 1 ]. Retrieval practice compounds the effect, so self-testing beats rereading at longer delays[ 2 ]. The federal practice guide lists both as strong-evidence classroom recommendations[ 3 ].
  • cepeda-2006-spacing-effect.pdf
  • roediger-karpicke-testing.pdf
  • ies.ed.gov/practiceguide
34
sources read
3
support
6
dispute

For analysts and policy teams

The analyst's real job.

You are handed a district plan, a funding request or a program review and asked whether the claims stand. The evidence is real but scattered across report cards, budget filings, enrollment counts and prior plans. Reading all of it by hand is the job that never fits in the day. Lens reads it for you and marks each claim supported or disputed against the source.

  • A literacy gain the state report card does not show.
  • A funding figure that does not match the budget filing.
  • An enrollment trend quoted from a year that was later revised.
  • A vendor outcome with no study behind it.
Three checks that look like your week.
Strategic-plan review
Test each claim in the plan against the report cards and filings before it reaches the board.
Grant application
Confirm the enrollment and outcome figures trace to the source, not a prior draft.
Vendor review
Check a vendor's promised outcome against the study behind it, or find there is none.

THE CLAIM

One claim, checked.

THE CLAIM

District 7's third-grade reading proficiency rose 12 points after the new literacy program.

checked against 34 sources

The state report card shows a 4 point gain over the same window, not 12. Two district press releases repeat the 12 point figure. The 12 traces to a single internal memo that measures a different test.
Every figure opens to the filing it came from. The memo, the report card and the press releases are all on screen.
  1. 1

    Load the record

    Upload the plan and the sources it rests on as an Index, or point Lens at the open index.

  2. 2

    Ask the question

    Smart Search ranks the report cards, filings and plans and invents no answer on top. Chat writes a grounded answer over them, marks each claim supported or disputed and lets you pick the model.

  3. 3

    Read the split

    See what supports the claim and what disputes it, with the passage behind each one.

  4. 4

    Send it up with the evidence

    Hand the board a memo where every number opens to its source, not a summary you defend from memory.

In your workflow.

The same four steps, whether it is a strategic plan, a grant application or a vendor review.

You already know how to read the evidence. Lens is how you read all of it in time.

Student and district records you upload stay in a private Index your team controls. Lens does not train on your documents, and the same inputs return the same verdicts.

Book a demo