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

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

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