Scale to 50+ Users and Defend at Oral Examination

Proof required

Submit: (1) partnership documentation — a letter, email, or signed agreement from an organisation representative naming the organisation, confirming access to their community, and dated; (2) usage evidence showing at least 50 distinct real users completing the core task (session logs, analytics with event tracking on the core task, or a written confirmation from the partner organisation's representative); and (3) a written attestation from your faculty supervisor confirming the deployment is live.

What gets checked

• Partnership documentation names a real, independent organisation and a real contact person — not a family connection or personal network; the organisation should have a verifiable public identity
• Usage evidence is specific to core task completion by 50 distinct users — not total reach, download count, or social media exposure; 'approximately 50 people saw a demonstration' does not count
• If deployment included under-18 users, the faculty attestation confirms that appropriate consent procedures were followed before data collection

Common mistakes

• '50 users' is achieved through passive social media exposure, app downloads, or a demonstration to a classroom audience rather than 50 people actively completing the core task in the deployed product
• The partner organisation is a family member's workplace or a personal connection rather than an independent community organisation with a public identity
• Usage evidence is self-reported by the student without any independently verifiable analytics, logs, or partner confirmation

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Contact the partner organisation representative independently — using the contact information in the partnership documentation — to confirm the partnership is real and the usage numbers are credible; this independent verification is required
• Review usage evidence critically: 50 completed core-task sessions is different from 50 sign-ups; ask the student to demonstrate specifically what 'completed the core task' means in the evidence and where it is shown
• If under-18 users were involved, ask the faculty supervisor specifically whether appropriate consent procedures were followed before data collection — this must be answered affirmatively and documented

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

Proof required

Submit: (1) an impact measurement report documenting real-world outcomes for community users — evidence that the problem improved for at least some users, using both quantitative and qualitative evidence (not just usage metrics but real-world change evidence such as behaviour shifts, health indicators, learning outcomes, or efficiency gains); and (2) your Extended Essay first draft (minimum 4000 words) with a named disciplinary research question from one IB subject, grounded primarily in evidence from your own project.

What gets checked

• Impact measurement goes beyond product usage metrics — it documents whether the problem got measurably better for real users (outcome evidence), not just whether they used the product more (engagement evidence)
• The Extended Essay research question is specific and answerable with the project's own evidence — not 'is innovation good for communities?' but a falsifiable question that the project's data can directly address
• The essay draft is primarily grounded in the project's own primary evidence with secondary sources providing disciplinary context only — secondary sources do not substitute for impact data

Common mistakes

• Impact measurement is based only on user satisfaction scores and product usage rates rather than evidence of real-world change in the problem being addressed
• The Extended Essay research question is so broad it cannot be answered by one project's evidence, leading to an essay that draws primarily from secondary sources rather than the project's own data
• The essay describes the project chronologically rather than using the project as evidence to answer a disciplinary research question

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Check that impact measurement goes beyond engagement metrics — ask: did the problem get measurably better for any users? What is the specific evidence of real-world change rather than product adoption?
• Review the Extended Essay research question: is it specific and answerable with the project's data? Ask the student to explain what data they have that directly answers the research question
• Confirm the essay draft is primarily grounded in the project's own primary evidence — not secondary sources; ask the student to identify the three pieces of evidence that most directly support their answer to the research question

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

Proof required

Submit: (1) your final Extended Essay (4000–4500 words, final version with research question, primary evidence, analysis, and conclusion); (2) examination record documenting the date, examiner names and institutional roles, at least four challenge questions with your responses (written notes completed within 24 hours of the examination); and (3) a post-examination reflection (minimum 200 words) describing what the examiners challenged that you had not fully considered and how your thinking changed.

What gets checked

• The external examiner is genuinely independent — not a parent, not the student's regular teacher, and not anyone who has advised or supervised the project at any stage; their institutional role and affiliation is documented in the examination record
• Examination record shows challenge questions were genuinely adversarial — the examiners probed assumptions, asked for evidence behind claims, and presented counter-interpretations; a supportive conversation with no genuine challenge does not pass
• The post-examination reflection demonstrates changed thinking — not 'the examiners confirmed my conclusions' but specific intellectual revision or newly identified limitations that the examination revealed

Common mistakes

• The external examiner is a family member, a long-term personal mentor, or someone who has been following the project — their questions are supportive rather than adversarial, and the examination record reads as confirmation rather than challenge
• The examination record summarises topics discussed rather than documenting specific challenge questions and the student's real-time responses
• The post-examination reflection reports that examiners agreed with the student's conclusions rather than identifying specific ways the examination changed or deepened the student's thinking

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Confirm the external examiner's genuine independence: ask the faculty supervisor whether the external examiner has been involved in advising or supervising the project at any point; this must be answered in the negative for the examination to be valid
• Read the examination record and identify the two most challenging questions posed — ask the student to explain how they responded to the hardest one; a strong defence shows the student engaged with the specific objection rather than restating their original position
• Check the post-examination reflection: does the student describe specific ways their thinking changed, or does it read as confirmation of prior conclusions? A genuine defence changes or deepens something — flag any reflection that reports only agreement

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