Report the least bad information rather than none

The advice. “We can either resist allowing them more information, (or determine) what method can we use that will give the ‘least bad’ information.” And: “You want to provide happy medium (between) no information and inaccurate information from scale scores.”

Why. This is the committee’s framing decision for the whole session, and everything else it said about subscores follows from it.

The committee’s technical position is that subscore reporting from a deliberately unidimensional test is close to indefensible — “seems detrimental to provide that information from something you developed to not do that.” But it did not recommend stopping. The field’s demand is real, the reporting already exists, and withdrawal is its own kind of failure.

So the committee named the choice explicitly and took the second option: given that Michigan will report something, report the thing that is least wrong, and be honest about how wrong it is. That honesty requirement is Report a level of certainty with any subscore category — it is what separates “least bad” from “less obviously bad.”

Status. Open as a standing posture rather than a discrete action.