## 3 Results
### Ordering Relationships for the \(Madm_{m},Cp_{m},\)\(Ci_{m}\) and \(\beta_{m}\) Indicators  
The obtained \(MAD_{M}\) values fell within the variation range stipulated by Inequality (107). They ranged between \(0.06\) (for \(M=ST-FIS\)) and \(0.11\) (for \(M=\)_Summative_) (Table 6), thereby satisfying the relative ordering  
\[MAD_{ST-FIS}<MAD_{ST}<MAD_{R}<MAD_{S} \tag{113}\]  
In agreement with the statement of Inequality (99), calculated \(CP_{M}\) values (Tables 1-7) range between \(0.23\) (\(M=\) Summative) and \(0.96\) (\(M=ST-FIS\)), also sustaining the order of  
\[CP_{S}<CP_{R}<CP_{ST}<CP_{ST-FIS}. \tag{114}\]  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & \(\boldsymbol{SE\ (MAD_{M})}\) & \(\boldsymbol{SE\ (CI_{M})}\) & \(\boldsymbol{SE\ (\beta_{M})}\) \\ \hline Summative & \(0.00086\) & \(0.00018\) & \(0.00018\) \\ Rubric & \(0.00096\) & \(0.00050\) & \(0.00060\) \\ ST & \(0.00051\) & \(0.00036\) & \(0.00050\) \\ ST-FIS & \(0.0010\) & \(0.00089\) & \(0.0012\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 7: Standard errors (\(\boldsymbol{SE\ (M)}\) corresponding to the indicators of Agreement \((MAD_{M})\), Consistency (\(CI_{M}\)), and Efficiency (\(\beta_{M}\)) for each grading method). These values are based on simulation runs and quantify the statistical variability of each metric.  
Figure 1: Consistency and efficiency indices as functions of a varying dispersion index \(MAD_{M}\) and a fixed complexity pointer \(CP_{M}\). Behavior of the consistency index \(CI_{M}\) (panel (**a**)) and efficiency index \(\beta_{M}\) (panel (**b**)) as a function of the dispersion index \(MAD_{M}\) while keeping different fixed values of the complexity pointer \(CP_{M}\).  
Correspondingly, entries in Table 6 corroborate that calculated \(CI_{M}\), values fell within the variation range set by \(\theta=0.13\) and \(\rho=1.0\). Indeed, calculated \(CI_{M}\) entries ranged between 1.20 (\(M=Summative\)) and 1.91 (\(M=ST-FIS\)). Accordingly, the calculated \(CI_{M}\) values sustain the following order:  
\[CI_{S}<CI_{R}<CI_{ST}<CI_{ST-FIS}. \tag{115}\]  
It can also be asserted that all addressed methods entail well-balanced grading protocols. Moreover, according to entries in Table 6, among presently analyzed protocols, the \(ST-FIS\) method attained the highest \(CI_{M}\), suggesting that despite its complexity, it maintains high coherence. Conversely, the Summative method obtained the lowest \(CI_{M}\), implying that its simplicity might render it unable to capture more nuanced evaluations.  
Therefore, compared to the Summative, ST, and Rubric counterparts, we can assert that the ST-FIS arrangement produced a higher Consistency index \((CI_{M})\); it achieved a better balance between low grading dispersion \((MAD_{M})\) and reasonable grading complexity \((CP_{M})\). According to the proposed threshold-based ranking approach, the entries in Table 6 verify that the Summative and Rubric methods fell within a moderate consistency range of, \(1\leq CI_{M}\leq 3/2\), thereby showing acceptable consistency but the potential to be improved. Concurrently, both the ST and ST-FIS methods were placed within the high consistency domain \(3/2<CI_{M}\leq 2\), which indicates reliable and efficient grading.  
Concerning \(\beta_{M}\) values, the methods were placed in the following order:  
\[\beta_{S}<\beta_{R}<\beta_{ST}<\beta_{ST-FIS} \tag{116}\]  
Moreover, according to entries in Table 6, the calculated \(\beta_{M}\) value for \(M=Summative\) placed within the low inefficiency range (\(1/6<\beta_{M}\leq 2/6\)). Correspondingly, \(\beta_{M}\) for \(M=Rubric\) accommodated within the moderate efficiency range, namely, \(2/6\leq\beta_{M}\leq 3/6\). Accordingly, optimizing the ensuing complexity or consistency could render it necessary for this scheme. On the other hand, both the ST and ST-FIS protocols operated in the highly efficient domain, \(\beta_{M}>1/2\), which suggest that these grading methods achieved strong consistency with reasonable complexity.