## 2 Materials and Method
### Formalization of the Consistency and Efficiency Indicators  
In what follows, we rely on an \(M\) subscript to generically refer to a student grading method \(M\). This way, to refer to the Summative protocol, we take \(M=S\), \(M=R\) for the Rubric, \(M=ST\) for the ST scheme, and \(M=ST-FIS\) to refer to the \(ST-FIS\) arrangement. To assess the suitability of the addressed methods, we depend on using a mathematical Consistency Index (\(CI_{M}\)) that defines in terms of the Mean Absolute Deviation (\(MAD_{M}\)), and a Complexity Pointer (\(CP_{M}\)). This last one is conceived as a numerical indicator of the relative complexity of the formal structure of a grading method \(M\). Setting its form requires primarily considering (1) the number \((N_{M})\) of components, (2) that of distinct elements (\(E_{M}\)), and (3) that of the mathematical operations \((Q_{M})\) involved in \(M\) to compute a final grade.  
For the addressed consistency comparison among different methods, we consider pondered values \(PN(N_{M})\), \(PE(E_{M})\) and \(PQ(Q_{M})\), associated with the factors \(N_{M}\), \(E_{M}\) and \(Q_{M}\), respectively. To obtain these entries, we consider the strengths of the later indicators relative to their maximum values across all methods \(M\), that is,  
\[PN(N_{M})=\frac{N_{M}}{max(N_{M})} \tag{89}\]  
\[PE(E_{M})=\frac{E_{M}}{max(E_{M})} \tag{90}\]  
\[PQ(Q_{M})=\frac{Q_{M}}{max(Q_{M})} \tag{91}\]  
where  
\[max(N_{M})=max\{N_{S},N_{R},N_{ST},N_{ST-FIS}\}, \tag{92}\]  
\[max(E_{M})=max\{E_{S},E_{R},E_{ST},E_{ST-FIS}\}, \tag{93}\]  
\[max(Q_{M})=max\{Q_{S},Q_{R},Q_{ST},Q_{ST-FIS}\}. \tag{94}\]  
Then, the indicators \(PN(N_{M}),PE(E_{M})\) and \(PE(Q_{M})\) as given by Equations (89)-(91) will take values within the interval \([0,1]\) and consequently will thereby remain as normalized entries.  
Accordingly, the Complexity Pointer \(CP_{M}\) for method \(M\) is defined as the weighted sum of the \(PN(N_{M})\), \(PE(E_{M})\), and \(PQ(Q_{M})\) factors, namely,  
\[CP_{M}=aPN(N_{M})+bPE(E_{M})+cPQ(Q_{M}), \tag{95}\]  
where \(a,b,c\) are weighting coefficients reflecting the relative importance that the factors \(N_{M}\), \(E_{M}\), and \(Q_{M}\), respectively, bear in the determination of the complexity pointer \(CP_{M}\). Moreover, we set the condition  
\[a+b+c=1. \tag{96}\]  
Then, defining  
\[\rho=max\{PN(N_{M}),PE(E_{M}),PQ(Q_{M})\} \tag{97}\]  
and  
\[\theta=min\{PN(N_{M}),PE(E_{M}),PQ(Q_{M})\} \tag{98}\]  
We have that Equations (97) and (98) imply \(CP_{M}\) lying within the range  
\[\theta\leq CP_{M}\leq\rho. \tag{99}\]  
Then, we define \(CI_{M}\) as the ratio:  
\[CI_{M}=\frac{1+CP_{M}(1+MAD_{M}\cdot CP_{M})}{1+MAD_{M}\cdot CP_{M}}, \tag{100}\]  
where \(CP_{M}\) is given by Equation (95). According to the evaluation method \(M\) we are dealing with, the \(MAD_{M}\) entry embodies each one of the forms given by Equations (14), (44), (68), or (88).  
Correspondingly we set the \(\beta_{M}\) efficiency rating index to take the form  
\[\beta_{M}=\frac{CI_{M}\cdot CP_{M}}{(MAD_{M}+1)\cdot(CP_{M}+1)}. \tag{101}\]  
Appendix E provides a glossary of the terms used throughout this manuscript.