Discover a Problem and Defend Your Thesis

Proof required

Submit your problem scoping document (minimum 400 words) including: the named problem and the community it affects; notes or transcripts from at least three primary research conversations with real names or anonymised roles, specific responses, and dates; citations for at least three secondary sources with URLs or publication details; and a 100-word analysis of why current solutions are insufficient for your target community.

What gets checked

• Primary research is documented with specifics — interview notes include the name or role of each person spoken to, at least one direct quote per conversation, and the date; not vague summaries like 'people told me they had this problem'
• Secondary sources are named, cited, and specifically about the problem — not generic background reading but publications that document the scope, cause, or current response landscape of the specific problem
• The gap analysis names at least two existing solutions by name and explains for each why it does not fully address the target community's experience — 'people don't use it' is not an explanation

Common mistakes

• Primary research consists only of conversations with family members or close friends who share the student's own perspective — interviewees need lived experience of the problem itself
• Secondary sources are Wikipedia articles or generic background material rather than evidence specifically about the problem's prevalence, cause, or current response landscape
• The gap analysis describes why the problem is difficult without actually engaging with what has already been tried — existing solutions are not named

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Check that primary research documentation includes real names or anonymised roles, specific dates, and direct quotes from each person spoken to — not paraphrased summaries
• Confirm secondary sources are cited with enough detail to find them (URL or author/publication/date) and are specifically about the problem rather than general background
• Ask the student to name two existing solutions and explain specifically why each fails for their target community — the answer should name concrete limitations, not generic statements about the problem being hard

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit your solution comparison document (minimum 500 words) covering: at least three named solution approaches each with a structured evaluation (what it does, who it serves, resources required, ethical risks named specifically); your selected approach with a written rationale explaining why it is both feasible and ethically preferable to the alternatives, grounded in evidence from your problem research.

What gets checked

• Three genuinely distinct approaches are described — not three variations of the same idea (e.g. 'build an app', 'build a better app', 'build a free app' are not three distinct approaches; the mechanisms for solving the problem must differ)
• Ethical analysis is substantive for each approach — at least one specific risk is named per approach (not 'privacy might be a concern') with a sentence explaining who would be affected and how
• The recommendation makes a genuine choice grounded in the problem research and explains why the two rejected alternatives were inferior — it does not simply default to the most technically complex option

Common mistakes

• All three solution approaches are technology-based without considering non-technical approaches (community programmes, partnerships, behavioural interventions, policy changes) — the evaluation is artificially narrow
• Ethical analysis is generic — 'privacy might be a concern' without specifying what data is involved, who accesses it, and what the concrete harm scenario is
• The recommendation reflects what the student already wanted to build before the analysis rather than what the evidence from problem research suggests is needed

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Check that three genuinely different solution approaches are described — ask the student to explain the mechanism of each; if all three work through the same mechanism, they are not distinct approaches
• Confirm that ethical analysis for each approach names a specific risk with a specific harm scenario — not just 'privacy could be an issue' but 'users' health data could be shared with advertisers if the platform is acquired'
• Ask the student to defend their recommendation against the strongest objection to it — they should be able to articulate specifically why the two rejected alternatives were inferior given the problem evidence

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit: (1) your thesis document (the argument in written form, minimum 600 words); (2) a record of the panel challenge questions and your responses — written notes, audio recording, or a summary written immediately after (must name the panellist, their question, and your response); and (3) a 150-word post-defence revision note explaining what specifically changed in your thinking after the panel and why.

What gets checked

• The thesis makes a specific, arguable claim — not 'I will build an app to help people' but a position that could be challenged and defended with evidence from your problem research
• The challenge question record shows that real objections were raised by someone with domain knowledge — responses that simply restate the original argument without addressing the specific objection are not a valid defence
• The revision note demonstrates changed or deepened thinking — not confirmation that 'the panel agreed with me' but specific ways the challenge questions produced actual revision or identified genuine limitations

Common mistakes

• The 'panel' consisted only of peers or family members without relevant domain knowledge — challenge questions were supportive rather than adversarial, and the revision note reports that no changes were needed
• Challenge question responses restate the original claim rather than specifically addressing the objection raised — the thesis was not actually tested, only re-presented
• The thesis is a description of what the student plans to do rather than an argument for why this approach is the correct one given the problem evidence

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Confirm the panel included at least one faculty member or teacher capable of asking informed questions about the problem domain — peer-only panels are not accepted for this milestone
• Read the thesis and ask at least one specific challenge question about either the ethical analysis or the feasibility reasoning; document both your question and the student's response
• Check the revision note: does it describe specific changes in thinking, or does it report that the panel agreed with everything? A genuine defence changes or deepens something; confirmation of prior views does not pass

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.