Skills

Policy Analysis and Recommendation

10 weeks · 0 milestones

Produce a real policy brief addressed to a named decision-maker (a specific government department, parliamentary committee, or named NGO) on a real, current policy question. Include: a problem statement with evidence, at least two policy options with documented trade-offs and political feasibility assessment, and a concrete recommendation. Proof is the policy brief plus a documented expert challenge session with a policy practitioner or political scientist who questions the feasibility of your recommended option — your written summary of the challenge and your response to it are required as part of the proof.

Part of: Social Sciences, Law & Humanities · Proves for: UG

Milestone map

3 milestones

Identify a real policy problem and assess the policy context

4 weeks

Select a real policy problem in a specific jurisdiction — a health, education, transport, housing, or social welfare policy — and produce a structured policy context assessment: the problem definition with supporting evidence (statistics, research, or official reports), the current policy response and its documented weaknesses, the stakeholders involved and their interests, and the political feasibility constraints that any recommendation must work within. Use real official sources: government statistics, parliamentary or congressional reports, academic policy research.

Proof required

Policy context assessment document (600+ words) covering: problem definition with at least two cited evidence sources, current policy response with documented weaknesses, stakeholder map with interests, and political feasibility constraints relevant to this jurisdiction and policy area.

What gets checked

Problem definition is supported by real cited evidence — not anecdotal or asserted
Current policy weaknesses are documented from real sources — not just 'the current policy is not working'
Feasibility constraints are specific to this jurisdiction and policy area

Common mistakes

Defining the problem without evidence — policy analysis requires documented evidence of the problem's scale and nature
Ignoring political feasibility — recommendations that are technically optimal but politically impossible in the jurisdiction are not actionable policy analysis
Stakeholder analysis that only lists actors without specifying their interests and influence

Powstik Guide

A 600-word policy context assessment.

Steps

Define the problem with two cited sources.
Map the key actors.
Describe current policy.
Name the gap to address.

Template

Problem (sources):
Actors:
Current policy:
Gap:

What gets sent back

Under 600 words.
Sources uncited.
Hypothetical instead of real.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Check problem definition evidence — verify at least one cited source is real and supports the claim
Review current policy weaknesses — confirm they are documented from real sources
Check feasibility constraints — confirm they are specific to this jurisdiction and policy area

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

Develop and appraise policy options and produce a recommendation

4 weeks

Develop three distinct policy options for addressing the M1 problem, including the status quo as one option. For each option: describe the mechanism, assess effectiveness against the policy problem, assess costs (financial and political), and assess risks. Produce a structured appraisal (a table or comparative framework) and a specific policy recommendation with a clear rationale: why this option addresses the problem adequately, is politically feasible, and is preferable to the alternatives.

Proof required

Policy appraisal document (700+ words) covering: three distinct policy options including status quo, a structured comparative appraisal (table or framework) assessing effectiveness, costs, and risks for each, and a specific policy recommendation with clear rationale explaining why it is preferable to the alternatives.

What gets checked

Three distinct options are developed — not three versions of the same approach
Structured comparative appraisal is present — not a narrative that implicitly prefers one option
Recommendation rationale explains why this option is preferable to the alternatives specifically

Common mistakes

Options that are not genuinely distinct — three variations of 'spend more money on current approaches' is one option
Appraisal that omits costs — a recommendation that only assesses effectiveness without costs is incomplete
Recommendation without comparative rationale — 'Option B is best' without explaining why it is better than Options A and C is not policy analysis

Powstik Guide

Three distinct options, appraised side by side.

Steps

Include the status quo as one option.
Make the other two work through different mechanisms.
Score each on effectiveness, cost and risk.
Name who gains and who loses under each.
Recommend one and say why it beats the others.

Template

| Option | Mechanism | Effectiveness | Cost | Risk | Who loses |
|--------|-----------|---------------|------|------|-----------|
| Status quo | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Recommendation and why it beats the alternatives:

What gets sent back

Three versions of the same option.
An appraisal with no costs.
'Option B is best' with no comparison.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Review the three options — confirm they are genuinely distinct policy approaches
Check the comparative appraisal — confirm it assesses effectiveness, costs, and risks for each option
Review recommendation rationale — confirm it explains why this option is preferable to the alternatives

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

Defend policy recommendation under policy analyst or practitioner challenge

1 week

Present the policy analysis and recommendation to a policy analyst, policy practitioner, or public policy academic for a structured Q&A. The reviewer must challenge the recommendation — 'option C was rejected because of cost, but option B has higher implementation risk — have you properly weighted that?', 'your feasibility assessment assumes stable political conditions, but what if the government changes?', 'who loses from your recommended option and have you accounted for their response?'. This Q&A satisfies the ADVERSARIAL VERIFICATION RULE.

Proof required

Q&A notes (250+ words) documenting the reviewer's policy credentials, at least three specific challenges to the appraisal or recommendation with responses, and any analysis updates committed to.

What gets checked

Reviewer is a policy analyst, practitioner, or public policy academic
At least three specific challenges to the appraisal or recommendation are documented
At least one analysis update is committed to based on the session

Common mistakes

Reviewer validates the recommendation without challenging the appraisal criteria or feasibility assumptions
Not being able to identify who loses from the recommendation under challenge — every policy recommendation creates losers
No analysis updates after a genuine feasibility or distributional challenge

Powstik Guide

Your recommendation, challenged by a policy practitioner.

Steps

Name who loses from your recommendation, and how much.
Mark your shakiest feasibility assumption.
Book a policy analyst, practitioner or public policy academic.
Ask for three challenges to criteria or feasibility.

Template

Challenge session log
Date:            Duration:
Reviewer name:
Reviewer role and credentials:

Challenge 1 (feasibility or who loses):
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?
Challenge 2:
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?
Challenge 3:
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?

Update I am committing to:

What gets sent back

A reviewer who approves without challenge.
No answer to who loses.
No update after the session.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Confirm reviewer is a policy analyst, practitioner, or public policy academic
Review Q&A notes — confirm at least three specific challenges to appraisal or recommendation are documented
Check that at least one analysis update is committed to

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

Part of

Political Science & Public Policy →

Related outcomes

Milestone map

3 milestones

Identify a real policy problem and assess the policy context

4 weeks

Proof required

What gets checked

Problem definition is supported by real cited evidence — not anecdotal or asserted
Current policy weaknesses are documented from real sources — not just 'the current policy is not working'
Feasibility constraints are specific to this jurisdiction and policy area

Common mistakes

Defining the problem without evidence — policy analysis requires documented evidence of the problem's scale and nature
Ignoring political feasibility — recommendations that are technically optimal but politically impossible in the jurisdiction are not actionable policy analysis
Stakeholder analysis that only lists actors without specifying their interests and influence

Powstik Guide

A 600-word policy context assessment.

Steps

Define the problem with two cited sources.
Map the key actors.
Describe current policy.
Name the gap to address.

Template

Problem (sources):
Actors:
Current policy:
Gap:

What gets sent back

Under 600 words.
Sources uncited.
Hypothetical instead of real.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Check problem definition evidence — verify at least one cited source is real and supports the claim
Review current policy weaknesses — confirm they are documented from real sources
Check feasibility constraints — confirm they are specific to this jurisdiction and policy area

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

Develop and appraise policy options and produce a recommendation

4 weeks

Proof required

What gets checked

Three distinct options are developed — not three versions of the same approach
Structured comparative appraisal is present — not a narrative that implicitly prefers one option
Recommendation rationale explains why this option is preferable to the alternatives specifically

Common mistakes

Options that are not genuinely distinct — three variations of 'spend more money on current approaches' is one option
Appraisal that omits costs — a recommendation that only assesses effectiveness without costs is incomplete
Recommendation without comparative rationale — 'Option B is best' without explaining why it is better than Options A and C is not policy analysis

Powstik Guide

Three distinct options, appraised side by side.

Steps

Include the status quo as one option.
Make the other two work through different mechanisms.
Score each on effectiveness, cost and risk.
Name who gains and who loses under each.
Recommend one and say why it beats the others.

Template

| Option | Mechanism | Effectiveness | Cost | Risk | Who loses |
|--------|-----------|---------------|------|------|-----------|
| Status quo | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Recommendation and why it beats the alternatives:

What gets sent back

Three versions of the same option.
An appraisal with no costs.
'Option B is best' with no comparison.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Review the three options — confirm they are genuinely distinct policy approaches
Check the comparative appraisal — confirm it assesses effectiveness, costs, and risks for each option
Review recommendation rationale — confirm it explains why this option is preferable to the alternatives

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

Defend policy recommendation under policy analyst or practitioner challenge

1 week

Proof required

Q&A notes (250+ words) documenting the reviewer's policy credentials, at least three specific challenges to the appraisal or recommendation with responses, and any analysis updates committed to.

What gets checked

Reviewer is a policy analyst, practitioner, or public policy academic
At least three specific challenges to the appraisal or recommendation are documented
At least one analysis update is committed to based on the session

Common mistakes

Reviewer validates the recommendation without challenging the appraisal criteria or feasibility assumptions
Not being able to identify who loses from the recommendation under challenge — every policy recommendation creates losers
No analysis updates after a genuine feasibility or distributional challenge

Powstik Guide

Your recommendation, challenged by a policy practitioner.

Steps

Name who loses from your recommendation, and how much.
Mark your shakiest feasibility assumption.
Book a policy analyst, practitioner or public policy academic.
Ask for three challenges to criteria or feasibility.

Template

Challenge session log
Date:            Duration:
Reviewer name:
Reviewer role and credentials:

Challenge 1 (feasibility or who loses):
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?
Challenge 2:
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?
Challenge 3:
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?

Update I am committing to:

What gets sent back

A reviewer who approves without challenge.
No answer to who loses.
No update after the session.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Confirm reviewer is a policy analyst, practitioner, or public policy academic
Review Q&A notes — confirm at least three specific challenges to appraisal or recommendation are documented
Check that at least one analysis update is committed to

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