You are evaluating whether an assessment question aligns to a specific math learning component.

You will receive:
* question: the full assessment prompt/instructions students see
* learning_components: a numbered list of learning components, each prefixed with an identifier in brackets

Your task: Determine whether the assessment item directly assesses each learning component.

Return a JSON array of evaluations, one entry per learning component. Each entry:
* lc_id: the identifier shown in brackets — copy it exactly
* reasoning: a concise explanation of what the learning component requires, what the question actually asks students to do, and why that is or is not alignment
* answer: exactly "Yes" or "No"
* feedback:
    * if answer = "No": explain concretely how to revise the item so it would assess the learning component
    * if answer = "Yes": brief confirmation is fine, or leave minimal useful note

Core rule:
* Answer "Yes" only if the mathematical work students must do in the item provides real evidence of the learning component.
* Answer "No" if the item assesses a different skill, only a related skill, only part of the learning component, or the connection is too indirect.
* If it is only a partial / approximate / "somewhat" match, answer "No".
* Do not require exact wording from the learning component; use the mathematical substance.

How to decide:
1. Identify the observable student evidence required by the learning component.
2. Identify the actual mathematical actions demanded by the question.
3. Compare them.
4. Ask: If a student completed this item correctly, would that demonstrate the target skill itself?

Important interpretation guidance:
* Focus on what students are asked to produce, not on tools/representations merely shown in the prompt.
* Distinguish between:
    * creating/representing/displaying something, and
    * interpreting/analyzing/using something already provided.
* An item does not align just because it contains the representation named in the learning component; students must be asked to perform the target action with it.
* If the prompt includes multiple parts, evaluate the full item, but only mark "Yes" if at least one required part directly elicits the target skill in a way that is sufficient evidence.
* If the item mainly assesses another skill and only incidentally touches the target skill, answer "No".
* Be charitable but do not infer hidden requirements that are not actually demanded.

Critical distinctions from prior examples:

1. Display vs interpret data
* Learning component: "Display numerical data in plots on a number line"
* If students are given dot plots and asked to describe center, spread, compare distributions, or make decisions from the plots, that is interpretation/analysis, not displaying.
* Such an item should be marked "No" unless students must actually construct or place the data on a number-line plot.

2. Operation mismatch
* If the learning component is about a specific operation or algorithm, the item must require that operation/method.
* Example: a subtraction problem does not align to "Fluently divide multi-digit decimals using the standard algorithm."
* Similar topic/context is not enough.

3. One-step vs two-step problem structure
* Be careful with story problems and equation matching.
* If the learning component specifies "two-step subtraction problems," a one-step subtraction story problem does not align, even if students select an equation and solve it.
* Representing and solving a one-step subtraction problem is not enough evidence for a two-step subtraction standard.

4. Representation must match the exact target
* If the learning component is about using drawings/equations to represent a specific kind of problem, check both:
    * whether students must represent it, and
    * whether the problem type matches exactly (for example, one-step vs two-step).
* Do not mark "Yes" just because there is an unknown symbol in an equation if the required problem type is wrong.

5. Geometry / area
* A question about finding the area of a parallelogram can align to a broader component such as finding area of polygons by composing into rectangles or decomposing into triangles/other shapes, even if "decompose/compose" is not explicitly stated, if solving the item genuinely relies on that area reasoning.
* If students explain reasoning or explain why an extra measurement was not used, that can be sufficient evidence.
* Do not reject such items merely because decomposition is implicit.

6. Inequalities
* A question aligns to writing inequalities in the form x > c or x < c if students must construct such an inequality from conditions or solution values, even if the item also asks them to identify solutions or graph it.
* Do not reject just because the writing is embedded within a multi-part item.

7. Shapes / cubes
* Distinguish general shape composition or equal-size-shape tasks from specifically identifying cubes.
* An item only aligns to "identify cubes" if students are actually identifying cube-shaped objects/units.

What to include in reasoning:
* Briefly state what the learning component requires in student-visible terms.
* Briefly state what the question requires.
* State whether the required evidence matches.
* If not, name the mismatch precisely (for example: interpreting instead of displaying, subtraction instead of division, one-step instead of two-step).

Feedback requirements when answer = "No":
* Give a concrete revision that would make the item align.
* Preserve the original context when possible, but change the task so students must demonstrate the target skill.
* Example revisions:
    * for "display data in plots on a number line": ask students to plot the provided numerical data on a line plot/dot plot
    * for decimal division fluency: ask students to divide multi-digit decimals using the standard algorithm
    * for a two-step subtraction representation standard: revise the story so solving requires two subtraction-related steps and ask students to represent it with drawings or equations using a symbol for the unknown

Output constraints:
* answer must be exactly "Yes" or "No"
* reasoning should be concise but specific
* feedback should be actionable, especially for "No"

Decision standard:
* Prefer "Yes" when the item clearly elicits the target mathematical work.
* Prefer "No" when alignment depends on speculation, on related-but-different skills, or on only partial overlap.

Math question: {question}
Learning components:
{learning_components}
