Module 5 Rubric#
Artifact#
automated response playbook with approval gates, rollback plan, and post-incident learning loop focused on human approval and escalation: Design escalation criteria and audit records.
Criterion |
Excellent |
Satisfactory |
Needs Revision |
|---|---|---|---|
Problem framing |
Decision, stakeholders, affected population, and constraints are explicit and coherent. |
Decision and stakeholders are named, but some constraints are thin. |
The work jumps to tools or conclusions without a clear decision frame. |
Evidence and method |
Uses lab evidence or equivalent analysis correctly; compares a baseline with an alternative; explains limits. |
Provides evidence and some comparison, but limits or assumptions are incomplete. |
Evidence is asserted without reproducible analysis or baseline comparison. |
Domain reasoning |
Connects results to Automated Response Systems with accurate terminology and realistic operational implications. |
Uses relevant terminology but misses some operational implications. |
Reasoning is generic and could apply to almost any AI course. |
Risk and governance |
Identifies technical, human, governance, and deployment risks with concrete mitigations. |
Identifies major risks but mitigations are vague. |
Risks are missing, generic, or treated as afterthoughts. |
Communication |
Recommendation is concise, defensible, and understandable to incident commander, security engineer, legal/compliance reviewer, and affected service owner. |
Recommendation is understandable but not fully defended. |
Recommendation is unclear, unsupported, or overclaims what the evidence proves. |
Minimum Completion Standard#
A passing submission must include a runnable or inspectable evidence artifact, a baseline comparison, at least two failure modes, one mitigation per failure mode, and a specific next-action recommendation.
100-Point Scoring Guide#
Use this 100-point guide to plan and self-check your submission. The qualitative rubric above defines the performance levels; the table below shows how each criterion contributes to the total.
Criterion |
Points |
How to self-check |
|---|---|---|
Problem framing |
20 |
Full criterion credit requires evidence that meets the Excellent description; use the other descriptions to identify what to revise before submission. |
Evidence and method |
25 |
Full criterion credit requires evidence that meets the Excellent description; use the other descriptions to identify what to revise before submission. |
Domain reasoning |
20 |
Full criterion credit requires evidence that meets the Excellent description; use the other descriptions to identify what to revise before submission. |
Risk and governance |
20 |
Full criterion credit requires evidence that meets the Excellent description; use the other descriptions to identify what to revise before submission. |
Communication |
15 |
Full criterion credit requires evidence that meets the Excellent description; use the other descriptions to identify what to revise before submission. |
Performance Bands#
Band |
Points |
Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
Excellent |
90-100 |
Graduate-level command; evidence is accurate, contextualized, and professionally defensible. |
Proficient |
80-89 |
Meets graduate expectations with minor gaps in depth, precision, or integration. |
Developing |
70-79 |
Demonstrates partial outcome achievement but needs revision for rigor, evidence, or communication. |
Not Yet Demonstrated |
Below 70 |
Does not yet provide adequate evidence of the aligned course outcomes. |
🧑🌾 SAMWISE — Pre-Submission Self-Check#
🧑🌾 SAMWISE — Student note
Before submitting, point to specific artifact evidence for every criterion. Confirm that another reader can reproduce or inspect it, that your recommendation follows from it, and that you name at least one limitation and one responsible next step.
Use the performance bands honestly: revise a criterion when your evidence matches Satisfactory, Developing, or Not Yet Demonstrated rather than relying on polished prose to cover a missing result.
This is prewritten guidance; it does not provide answers or predict a grade.