Feedback is where a branching scenario earns its keep — and where most fall apart. The classic failure is the buzzer: "Incorrect! The correct answer was B." The learner clicks past it, nothing transfers, and the scenario becomes a quiz wearing a costume.
ScenarioSplice gives you four feedback tags — correct, incorrect, partial, and info — that color-code pages for learners as they play. The tags are simple; the craft is what you write on the pages that carry them. Here is the approach, step by step.
Show the consequence first. Before any judgment appears, show what happens next: the customer replies, the vitals change, the auditor emails. Learners should feel the outcome the way they would at work. Judgment lands harder after experience.
Then explain, briefly. After the consequence, give one to three sentences of why. Name the principle ("escalating without data costs credibility") rather than restating the choice. If your explanation runs to a paragraph, the teaching probably belongs on the debrief page instead.
Reserve correct for the choice you would defend in review. Tag correct only the moves you would stand behind in a debrief with an expert in the room. If two options are both sound, both can be correct with different consequence text — that honesty builds trust faster than forcing a single winner.
Use partial when the choice is defensible but weaker. Partial is the workhorse tag. Most real decisions are not wrong, they are suboptimal: escalating too early, over-promising with good intentions, treating the symptom. Tag them partial and name the gap precisely — "this solves today’s ticket and teaches the team nothing." Partial feedback often teaches more than incorrect, because it maps the terrain between adequate and excellent, which is where working professionals actually live.
Keep incorrect respectful and realistic. The incorrect branch should be a mistake a competent person could make on a bad day, and the feedback should treat it that way — no gotchas, no shame. If nobody would genuinely choose an option, it should not exist.
Use info for facts, not judgment. Lab results, policy excerpts, background context — pages that inform the next decision without evaluating the last one get the info tag. This keeps the color language of the scenario honest: when learners see judgment colors, judgment is happening.
Move your reasoning into facilitator notes. Everything you want to say to another instructor — sources, debrief questions, why a branch is partial rather than incorrect — goes in private facilitator notes, visible only to you. Learner pages stay short; your rationale stays where the debrief needs it.
Frequently asked questions
Should every path end differently?
No — let branches merge where the situation would realistically converge. The feedback lives on the pages along the path, not only at the ending.
How long should feedback text be?
Consequence: two to four sentences in the voice of the situation. Explanation: one to three sentences naming the principle. Longer reflection belongs on the debrief page.
Can a scenario have no wrong answers?
Yes. History what-ifs and ethics dilemmas often tag everything info or partial, because the goal is reasoning, not verdicts. The four tags are a language, not a law.
Do learners see the tags themselves?
Learners see color-coded feedback as they play; you see and set the tags in the editor’s scenario map, where the colors also help you spot an unbalanced tree at a glance.