A rubric is a claim about what matters.

Every row says the same thing underneath: this is something I can see from the outside, and seeing it tells me something happened on the inside.

That claim held for a long time. Producing a clear, well structured, logically coherent answer used to require the understanding underneath it. Strong enough correlation to grade on.

OpenAI and Bocconi published a randomized experiment yesterday that tested it directly. More than 1,000 undergraduates, four groups, one five point rubric plus separate automated text analysis.

ChatGPT access raised the rubric score by almost a full point.

Causal reasoning training raised the originality and variety of ideas, measurably, and raised the rubric score by nothing.

The rubric asked whether the recommendation addressed two standard goals. It never asked whether the idea was one nobody else had. So a documented improvement in student thinking produced no change in the grade, because the grade was never looking there.

Full write up on the blog, and there is a free twenty minute audit that walks one assignment rubric row by row until you find the criterion a polished answer cannot earn:
https://www.harvestkernel.com/the-missing-row-rubric-audit/

Here is the question, and a number is a complete answer.

How many rows in the rubric you are actually using this term could a well organized but entirely conventional answer earn full marks on?