DAY 4 — Final Integration (35%)

Deliverables:

• LastName_FirstName_Day4_Proposal (6–8 pages)

• LastName_FirstName_Day4_Slides

• LastName_FirstName_Day4_Responses
  
  

FINAL PROPOSAL (25%)

Criterion 1 — Rationale Compression & Phase Awareness

4 – Problem tightly bounded; gap clearly justified; hook strategic and non-hype; phase explicitly defended and maturity realistic
3 – Clear rationale and appropriate phase; minor overreach or slight framing looseness
2 – Problem or gap loosely framed; phase weakly justified; ambition slightly premature
1 – Vague, aspirational, literature-heavy, or over-claimed maturity

Criterion 2 — Objectives & Question Discipline

4 – Objectives precise; research questions testable, phase-appropriate, and fully matched to design
3 – Mostly aligned; minor inconsistencies between questions and design
2 – Some question–design misalignment or unclear testability
1 – Questions not testable, overly broad, or disconnected from design

Criterion 3 — Programmatic Framework Maturity

4 – 3-box arc coherent and non-redundant; uncertainty reduction logic clear; progression realistic
3 – Logical progression with minor conceptual gaps
2 – Arc present but redundancy or premature scaling evident
1 – Studies disconnected; no clear dependency or progression logic

Criterion 4 — Methods Coherence & Justification

4 – Design, participants, data strategy, and analysis tightly justified; construct–indicator mapping clear; phase-aware restraint evident
3 – Strong coherence with minor justification gaps
2 – Partial alignment; some methods under-justified or loosely tied to questions
1 – Methods do not clearly answer research questions; unjustified tools or overreach present

Criterion 5 — KT Architecture Alignment

4 – Knowledge users specific (role, context, decision power); dominant KT goal phase-aligned; strategy realistic and feasible
3 – Clear KT logic with minor feasibility or specificity gaps
2 – Some mismatch between KT goal and strategy; users partially generic
1 – Strategy misaligned with goal; premature implementation assumptions

Criterion 6 — Integration & Coherence Across Sections

4 – No conceptual drift; sections reinforce one another; architecture disciplined and compressed
3 – Strong internal consistency with minor tension
2 – Some cross-sectional misalignment
1 – Major contradictions across sections

🎤 ORAL DEFENSE (5%)

Criterion 1 — Structural Clarity Under Time Constraint

4 – Clear, coherent articulation of full architecture within time limit
3 – Mostly clear; minor structural gaps
2 – Some confusion in articulation or loss of structural focus
1 – Disorganized or unclear explanation

Criterion 2 — Phase & Maturity Defense

4 – Confident, evidence-based defense of phase positioning and maturity limits
3 – Appropriate defense with minor hesitation
2 – Partial understanding of maturity implications
1 – Over-claimed or poorly defended positioning

Criterion 3 — Adaptive Reasoning to Critique

4 – Thoughtful, non-defensive, structurally mature responses
3 – Engages critique with minor defensiveness
2 – Surface-level engagement
1 – Defensive or dismissive response

📝 FINAL REFLECTION (5%)

Criterion 1 — Fragility Recognition & Intellectual Evolution

4 – Honest identification of structural fragility; clear evidence of intellectual maturation and recalibration
3 – Recognizes limitations and growth
2 – Surface-level reflection; limited insight
1 – Defensive, vague, or purely descriptive reflection

🟦 PROFESSIONAL ENGAGEMENT (5%)

Criterion 1 — Quality of Peer Interrogation

4 – Insightful, phase-aware structural critique; pushes peers constructively
3 – Meaningful structural feedback
2 – Basic commentary with limited depth
1 – Surface-level or non-structural feedback

Criterion 2 — Professional Submission Discipline

4 – All artifacts submitted correctly, on time, formatted precisely
3 – Minor formatting or naming issues
2 – Noticeable submission inconsistencies
1 – Late or incomplete submission