arXiv:2609.03917v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Science educators increasingly encounter AI tools that generate content, yet disciplinary teaching depends on eliciting learners' models, diagnosing misconceptions, interpreting evidence, and preserving professional judgment. This study asks how science teachers translate such epistemic work into specifications for agentic learning applications. It contributes to the conference theme, "Innovating Pedagogies, Inspiring Minds: Transforming Science Learning," and the Teachers' Professional Learning strand by examining app co-design as a form of pedagogical reasoning. We conducted a bounded qualitative cross-case analysis of four de-identified artifacts produced in a teacher professional-learning workshop: an experimental-design diagnostic, a Kinetic Particle Theory dialogue guide, a chemistry prior-knowledge checker, and a physics application/scaffolding tool. Each artifact was coded for the disciplinary problem, learner interaction, evidence made visible, teacher authority, and safeguard. All four connected a science-learning problem to an interaction and pedagogically interpretable evidence: misconceptions and gaps, explanations-in-progress, class-level readiness patterns, or investigation performance. However, only two made teacher control or evaluation explicit, and only two named a safeguard. The proposals therefore positioned AI less as an answer generator than as an elicitor, scaffold, and evidence-return mechanism, while leaving decision rights and protections unevenly specified. We argue that teacher professional learning should treat AI app ideation as epistemic specification work. A five-question design protocol--problem, learner interaction, evidence, teacher authority, and safeguard--can help teachers transform science-learning needs into accountable human-AI arrangements before building or adopting a tool.