Investigate supplied cases, revise evidence-based explanations and produce an annotated project. Design a fictional shared-river agreement with interests, bargaining alternatives, monitoring rules, dispute resolution and distributional impacts.
An implemented sequence of 5 case-based units with a guided project. These bounded cases introduce disciplinary mechanisms; they are not a complete semester survey, accreditation or verified learning effectiveness. Additional sustained readings, broader topic coverage and human review are needed for institutional credit.
Preparation and direct entry
Read a short source and distinguish observation from inference.
Use counts, percentages and simple tables; no coding required.
Open any lesson. Recaps explain assumed concepts without locking access.
0/9 lessons completed · 0 marked skipped. Skips do not reduce this course's completion denominator or award understanding. Shared lesson work is reused across paths; project evidence belongs to this course.
Lesson sequence
Each linked investigation opens on its own page. Your selected course stays with you as you move between lessons.
Foreign policy combines diagnoses, instruments and predicted consequences. A presidential speech directly supports claims about what its speaker proposed and argued; evaluating the diagnosis or the result requires additional evidence.
International environmental cooperation needs an implementation chain: scientific observation, negotiated obligations, domestic action, monitoring and adjustment. Signing an agreement and recovering an environmental system are different outcomes on different timescales.
Collective security depends on decisions by multiple actors as well as formal authority. Separate warnings, interpretation, political decisions, resources, command and action; failure at one link can constrain the others.
A crisis bargain can connect reciprocal assurances and observable steps. Each party may frame its actions differently, and a public message may omit other negotiations. Analyze what is offered, conditional, claimed and verifiable.
Cumulative projectSaved workspace · human review remains separate
CUMULATIVE PROJECT
A cooperation and verification agreement — High school
Design a fictional shared-river agreement with interests, bargaining alternatives, monitoring rules, dispute resolution and distributional impacts. Use the supplied fictional records and show each claim-to-evidence connection; an annotated diagram may accompany the written explanation.
Evidence and review criteria
Context and definitions: accurately identify the relevant institutions, mechanisms and population.
Evidence: connect specific records to claims without presenting fiction as observed history.
Analysis: show calculations or interpretation steps and consider a credible alternative.
Limits: separate facts, assumptions, causal claims and value judgments.
Transfer: adapt to the new case rather than repeating the worked response.
Communication and revision: provide an inspectable artifact and revision trail. Record guidance separately from quality; a submitted artifact is not automatically demonstrated understanding.
Use your lesson captures and citations. This saved workspace supports a reviewer; it does not automatically grade your writing or certify proficiency.
Review examples and quality criteria
These are authored teaching examples for practicing review, not calibrated scoring standards. Apply your course’s specific rubric above. Different conclusions can be defensible when evidence supports them; factual and numerical errors still require correction.
Claim needing revision
The constitution promises a right, so everyone can exercise it equally.
More defensible reasoning
The text establishes a formal rule. Evidence about eligibility, implementation, enforcement and actual participation is needed to assess access. A comparison should name which institution has authority and which observation would show the rule working in practice.
Why the revision helps
Formal authority and observed implementation are different evidence. The revised claim is still a plan for analysis until it cites a specific text and dated practice evidence.
Assess the artifact, with assistance recorded separately
Criterion
Developing evidence
Supported evidence
Well-substantiated evidence
Question and context
A broad topic or undefined population.
A focused question, time/place and relevant definitions.
A justified scope with context that changes the interpretation.
Sources and claims
Names a source but does not connect its contents to a claim.
Cites specific records and explains provenance and relevance.
Weighs limitations, corroboration and meaningful disagreement.
Mechanism and analysis
Gives a conclusion with missing steps or unclear units.
Shows a valid causal chain, calculation or interpretation.
Tests a credible alternative and explains sensitivity or uncertainty.
Transfer and revision
Repeats the worked answer despite changed facts.
Adapts the reasoning to the unfamiliar case.
Explains why the change matters and what evidence would reverse the conclusion.
Use “missing” when no relevant evidence is supplied. Do not average these descriptions into an automatic pass score. Record whether the learner followed an example, used guidance or worked independently, and review quality separately.
Locate one specific claim and its supporting source or calculation.
Check the context, units and intermediate reasoning.
Identify one plausible alternative and the evidence that distinguishes it.
Ask for a revision or an unfamiliar application; explain the reason for the request.
The saved project remains a draft or a local submission. This page does not record instructor certification or infer understanding from response length.
Separate application casesVersioned evidence · earlier work remains intact
Apply your reasoning to a separate case
These versioned cases add distinct evidence to the portfolio. Earlier drafts and local submissions remain intact. Write your explanation before revealing review notes when you want to retain a pre-feedback attempt.
Evaluate a monitoring agreement under changed incentives
Use this packet for a fresh written application. All records below are original fictional teaching materials. They test reasoning under stated conditions and do not establish actual historical or population facts. Your original course-project draft remains separate.
Fictional states M and N agree to cap river withdrawals at 40 units each per calendar year. A joint monitor reports monthly cumulative annual totals; it can publish findings but cannot impose fines. Each state retains control over enforcement.
The first year reports annual withdrawals of 38 and 39. Rainfall is 20% above the reference year. Both governments claim the agreement alone restored cooperation.
In the second calendar year during drought, M reports an annual total of 44 while the monitor estimates 48 with a stated uncertainty range 45–51. N withdraws 40 and demands immediate sanctions. No sanction authority was delegated.
This case is shared across paths that use it. Revisiting it in another course retains drafts and known review-note exposure; it is not a new unseen assessment.
Record agreement
Citation ID:
social:independent:international:v1-agreementFictional states M and N agree to cap river withdrawals at 40 units each per calendar year. A joint monitor reports monthly cumulative annual totals; it can publish findings but cannot impose fines. Each state retains control over enforcement.