This study presents a novel technological framework that integrates web-based 3D modeling and digital prototyping into interdisciplinary design education. Addressing the gap between traditional theoretical assessment and modern industry demands, the research investigates the implementation of interactive micro-websites and high-fidelity 3D product models as standard deliverables. Using a quasi-experimental design, the proposed digital workflow was tested on 53 final-year graphic design students at the University of Zagreb, divided into three groups based on the end users of their digital prototypes: real industry clients, peers, or academic mentors. The systemic reliability of the technological framework was measured through the technical quality of the final output (grades) analyzed via ANOVA, while user engagement with the digital process was tracked longitudinally. Results indicate that the implemented technological pipeline produced consistently high-quality outputs across all cohorts, with the client-facing group achieving the highest technical scores (M = 4.37; SD = 0.57). The lack of statistically significant variance between groups highlights a “ceiling effect,” demonstrating that the structured digital workflow itself is operationally stable and ensuring top-tier technical performance and prepress accuracy regardless of the evaluator. The study concludes that integrating advanced 3D web technologies and interactive public deliverables into the curriculum provides a scalable, industry-aligned technological model that successfully prepares design engineers for complex professional environments.

This study investigates the potential, limitations, and pedagogical implications of applying a parallel multi-model AI evaluation workflow, using ChatGPT, DeepSeek, and Uizard, to assess student design projects in higher education. Because design assessment involves both formal criteria and subjective creative interpretation, the study first established a human expert baseline based on three independent university professors. The human inter-rater reliability was low to moderate, with a mean pairwise Spearman’s ρ of 0.36 and Cronbach’s α of 0.60 for packaging design, and ρ of 0.43 and α of 0.69 for web design. This finding is central to the study, as it shows that the human benchmark in creative design assessment is itself variable and interpretive. Against this baseline, AI–human alignment remained limited and task-dependent. For packaging design, the AI ensemble showed only a weak positive association with the human expert baseline (Spearman’s ρ = 0.30, p = 0.031), which should be interpreted cautiously given the Bonferroni-adjusted significance threshold used in the study. For web design, no significant AI–human association was observed. Qualitative analysis of AI-generated rationales identified recurring limitations, including hallucination, aesthetic shield effects, and missed context, where visually polished work was rewarded despite deeper conceptual or structural weaknesses. The findings suggest that current AI systems can provide useful formative feedback on visible formal features, but they are not reliable as autonomous grading tools for complex creative work. AI-assisted assessment is therefore best understood as a supervised formative support mechanism, while final evaluation should remain grounded in human pedagogical judgment.