Courses / Communication and evidence-based writing / Explain, substantiate and recommend / An evidence-backed improvement proposal Build and defend your work An evidence-backed improvement proposal Prepare a before/after instruction, a claim-to-evidence table, a chart specification or attached chart, and a concise proposal about a fictional service. Preserve the original draft so a reviewer can inspect your revision decisions.
Choose an audience, investigate alternatives, copy evidence from your experiments, and produce an artifact. You can open this project at any time. Reports, numerical transfer checks and human review are separate outcomes.
Your project workspace Choose the kind of work you want to produce School investigation College investigation Workplace application Propose a school-club process improvement using a clearly labeled fictional survey, a chart and an instruction another student can follow.
1. Collect and compare evidence Required experiment sources:
Include every source above and at least one pair with different inputs from the same experiment. Explain confounding changes yourself; the presence check does not judge your interpretation.
Open an experiment and change an input or capture a trial to make evidence available here.
2. Write and revise your report Audience, decision and original draft Name the reader’s task and include the original unclear claim or instruction.
Revised explanation or instruction Supply the revised text and explain two changes in actor, action, denominator, deadline or dependency.
Claim-to-evidence table Match each important claim to an observation, its population and limitation; flag assumptions explicitly.
Chart specification and caption Provide or attach the chart with data, marks, axis range, units and caption. Explain what geometry encodes.
Recommendation and review Compare alternatives against a requirement. State missing evidence, next measurement and a condition that would change your advice.
Your artifact: code, analysis, prototype or decision brief This field stores up to 12,000 characters of inert text. Code runs only through the explicit bounded editor in the relevant lessons; project attachments never execute.
Load a text artifact Review your work against the rubric Instructions identify actors, action, order and deadlines without changing intended meaning. Claims preserve denominators, scope and observation limits. Chart marks and axes represent quantities honestly and include interpretable labels. Recommendation compares relevant alternatives under stated constraints. Before/after artifacts and revision reasons support human review; word counts do not certify writing quality. 11 evidence requirements remain Capture evidence from repair instructions. Capture evidence from honest denominators. Capture evidence from chart an honest comparison. Capture evidence from defend a recommendation. Include two different input configurations from the same experiment to compare. Write your audience, decision and original draft. Write your revised explanation or instruction. Write your claim-to-evidence table. Write your chart specification and caption. Write your recommendation and review. Add your project artifact: code, analysis, prototype or decision brief. Record my report Download report and evidence Editing the report or evidence returns it to draft. Recording verifies field presence and input comparisons, not correctness of your reasoning or code.
3. Check transfer to unfamiliar cases These authored cases use different numbers or conditions from the lesson practice. They are public local checks, not secure certification. Each case permits three submissions. Opening, first responses and attempt counts survive imports; no reset creates fresh evidence.
Case respondent-base Open case respondent-base Case chart-geometry Open case chart-geometry Case proposal-cost Open case proposal-cost
Return to the course · My Work and backups
