Milestone map
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.