The criteria are dense
Task sheets and ISMG marking criteria are written for teachers, not students. Knowing what “considered rationale” or “justified conclusion” actually looks like in your draft is hard to self-assess.
Ate-ar
- Physics
- IA1
- Task sheet
- IA2
- Research Investigation
- ISMG criteria
- Student Experiment
- IA3
- Biology
- Chemistry
- Math Methods
- Specialist Maths
Rigorous AI feedback grounded in QCAA's real marking criteria — marked against your actual task sheet, never written for you.
QCAA-appropriate AI
for Maths & Science
assignments.
Marks your draft against QCAA's real ISMG criteria — never writes a word of it for you.
Built for QCE students across Queensland
- Biology
- Chemistry
- Physics
- Psychology
- General Mathematics
- Mathematical Methods
- Specialist Mathematics
- IA1
- IA2
- IA3
- Student Experiment
- Research Investigation
- Problem-Solving and Modelling Task
The problem
Writing a strong IA is hard. Getting feedback on one is harder.
Chatbots just write it for you
Paste your draft into a generic AI chatbot and it will happily rewrite it — which risks your academic integrity and teaches you nothing about why your response falls short.
Teacher feedback is scarce
One or two checkpoint drafts is often all the 1:1 feedback you get before submission. Between checkpoints, you’re revising blind.
How it works
This is exactly what you’ll be using.
Check ISMG against QCAA's real marking criteria, see the evidence behind every result, ask Ate-ar a question, export — all in one pass.
Academic integrity
“Is this allowed? Isn’t this cheating?”
Fair question — and the honest answer is that Ate-ar is a feedback and drafting-support tool, not a ghostwriter. It works like a tutor pointing out issues in your draft against the marking criteria. The architecture makes this a hard rule, not a policy: the AI never writes your document for you. It comments, questions, and critiques — the final words are always your own.
Feedback is rigorous, not guaranteed — it holds your work to the criteria, but no tool can promise a mark. And AI policies differ between schools, so check yours before using any AI tool on assessment work. Ate-ar is built so you can answer honestly that every word you submit is yours.
What Ate-ar does
- Reads your uploaded task sheet and QCAA's real ISMG marking criteria
- Points out weak reasoning, gaps, and unclear methodology
- Asks questions and suggests what to reconsider
- Critiques your draft against the ISMG, like a tutor in the margins
What it never does
- Writes or rewrites your document for you
- Inserts AI-generated text into your draft
- Produces paragraphs for you to paste in
- Guarantees a mark, grade, or outcome
Pricing
Simple plans, priced for students.
Every plan includes the full editor and task-sheet-grounded AI. Plans differ in how much AI you can use each month — a feedback pass is 3 credits, an ISMG check is 2, a chat message is 1.
Free
$0AUD · forever
Try the full feedback loop on a single assessment.
- 1 active project
- 10 AI credits per month
- Task sheet upload
- Word-parity editor
- DOCX export
Basic
$8AUD · per month
Steady feedback across a term of drafting.
- 3 active projects
- 60 AI credits per month
- All 7 subjects
- Margin-style critique
- DOCX export
Pro
$25AUD · per month
Room to draft, check, and redraft without counting.
- Unlimited projects
- 250 AI credits per month
- All 7 subjects
- Margin-style critique
- DOCX export
FAQ
Questions, answered honestly.
Ate-ar is a feedback and drafting-support tool — like a tutor pointing out issues in your draft against the marking criteria, not a ghostwriter. The AI never writes or rewrites your document; every word you submit is your own. That said, AI policies differ between schools, so check your school's policy before using any AI tool on assessment work.
No — by design. The AI gives feedback, suggestions, and critique alongside your writing, but it cannot insert text into your document. If you want a tool that writes essays for you, this isn't it (and submitting AI-written work would breach academic integrity anyway).
Biology, Chemistry, Physics, and Psychology for science; General Mathematics, Mathematical Methods, and Specialist Mathematics for maths. That covers IA1 (Problem-Solving and Modelling Task, maths), IA2 (Student Experiment), IA3 (Research Investigation), and the formative practice versions FIA1, FIA2, and FIA3.
Task sheets can be uploaded as PDF or DOCX — the two formats schools typically hand out. Ate-ar reads the instructions and marking criteria from your actual sheet, so feedback is aligned to your task, not a generic template.
No, and you should be wary of anything that claims otherwise. The feedback is rigorous — it holds your draft to the ISMG criteria and points out where it falls short — but marks depend on your work, your marker, and moderation. Ate-ar helps you revise with clearer eyes; it doesn't promise outcomes.
The Free plan gives you 1 active project and 10 AI credits a month — enough to try the full feedback loop. Basic is $8 AUD/month with 3 projects and 60 credits; Pro is $25 AUD/month with unlimited projects and 250 credits. A full feedback pass costs 3 credits, an ISMG check 2, and a chat message 1 — so Pro covers roughly 50 feedback passes plus checks and chat every month.
About Ate-ar
Built by a student who kept losing marks to the same mistakes
Founder of Ate-ar
Year 11, Coomera Anglican College
I'm in Year 11, so I don't sit real IAs yet. I only sit FIAs (Formative Internal Assessments), the practice pieces marked against the same ISMG that will grade my IAs next year.
I built Ate-ar so I could use AI properly on my FIAs now, and carry that same process straight into my IAs in Year 12. The goal is simple: get as close to full marks as possible, in the most efficient way I can.
The problem was confidence. I could never be sure I'd actually satisfied the ISMG, right down to the specific descriptors that quietly cap a mark, like “fluent and concise use of scientific language and representations” in Finding for Science, or “correct use of appropriate mathematical language” in Communicate for Maths.
Notation slips. Unit errors. A mislabelled variable. The kind of mistake that's obvious once someone points it out, but invisible when you're the one who wrote it.
Every task sheet also states its own word-count rules: what counts toward the limit, and what doesn't. Recounting a draft against those rules by hand, on top of hunting for the same notation mistakes, took real time on every single revision.
I was ambitious about my grades. But honestly, I couldn't be bothered redrafting from scratch once I'd already written a complete assignment, even knowing a real draft is supposed to be your best attempt, not a formality.
So I built the tool I wished I had. Something that checks a draft against the actual marking criteria, catches the notation mistakes, and tells you where the word count stands, so redrafting properly is fast enough that you'll actually do it.
Your next draft can be your best one.
Upload your task sheet, write your response, and get rigorous feedback against the actual criteria — before your teacher or marker ever sees it.