Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Map a real social policy area and its comparative context
4 weeks
Select a real social policy area — welfare benefits, housing policy, healthcare access, childcare provision, or criminal justice — in a specific country, and produce a comparative policy map: the policy's goals (as stated officially), its instruments (benefits, services, regulations), coverage gaps (who is excluded), and comparison with at least two other countries' approaches to the same policy area. Use official statistics and cross-national databases (OECD Social Expenditure Database, Eurostat, World Bank).
Proof required
Comparative policy map document (600+ words) covering: policy goals (cited to official sources), instruments, coverage gaps with evidence, and comparison with at least two other countries — each comparison on the same named dimension with data.
What gets checked
- Policy goals are cited to official sources — not inferred
- Coverage gaps are evidenced with statistics — not just described
- Comparison with at least two other countries is on the same named dimension with data for all countries
Common mistakes
- Comparing countries without specifying the dimension — 'country X is better' is not a comparative analysis
- Coverage gaps described without evidence — gaps must be documented with statistics
- Policy goals inferred rather than cited from official sources
Powstik Guide
A comparative map of one policy area across countries.
Steps
- Pick one policy area and two or three countries.
- Quote each policy's official goals.
- List instruments and who is covered.
- Note gaps with data sources.
Template
| Country | Official goal (source) | Instruments | Coverage | Gaps | |---------|------------------------|-------------|----------|------|
What gets sent back
- Goals not cited to official sources.
- Only one country.
- No data for gaps.
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Check policy goals citations — confirm at least one is from an official government or OECD source
- Review coverage gaps — confirm they are evidenced with statistics
- Check comparative analysis — confirm the same dimension is used for all countries with data
You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.
Assess policy effectiveness and produce a reform recommendation
4 weeks
Assess the effectiveness of the selected social policy against its stated goals using available evidence (official evaluations, academic research, OECD assessments). Identify where the policy is effective, where it falls short, and why. Produce a specific reform recommendation — a named change to policy instruments, coverage, or eligibility — justified by the effectiveness evidence and informed by the comparative analysis from M1. Assess the feasibility and distributional implications of the reform.
Proof required
Policy effectiveness assessment and reform recommendation document (600+ words) covering: effectiveness assessment against stated goals with evidence, at least two areas where policy falls short with reasoning, a specific named reform recommendation justified by the evidence, and feasibility and distributional implications of the reform.
What gets checked
- Effectiveness assessment is against the policy's own stated goals — not goals the analyst imposes
- Reform recommendation is specific and named — not 'increase spending'
- Distributional implications are addressed — who benefits and who bears costs
Common mistakes
- Assessing effectiveness against goals the analyst imposes rather than the policy's own stated goals
- Reform recommendation that is not specific — 'improve coverage' is not actionable without specifying the coverage change
- Not addressing distributional implications — every social policy reform has distributional effects that must be identified
Powstik Guide
An evidence-based verdict on the policy and a reform.
Steps
- Copy the policy's own stated goals word for word.
- Gather official evaluations and research for each goal.
- Mark where it works and where it falls short.
- Propose one specific reform that fixes a shortfall.
- State who gains, who loses, and whether it's feasible.
Template
| Stated goal | Evidence | Met? | Source | |-------------|----------|------|--------| Shortfalls: 1. 2. Reform (specific change): Who gains / who loses: Feasibility:
What gets sent back
- Goals you imposed, not the policy's own.
- A vague reform like 'improve coverage'.
- No distributional effects discussed.
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
Masteryfor the dedicated
What a verifier looks for
- Check effectiveness assessment — confirm it is against the policy's own stated goals with evidence
- Review reform recommendation — confirm it is specific and named
- Check distributional implications — confirm they address who benefits and who bears costs
You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.
Defend social policy analysis under policy analyst or academic challenge
1 week
Present the social policy analysis and reform recommendation to a social policy academic, welfare researcher, or policy practitioner for a structured Q&A. The reviewer must challenge the comparative analysis and reform recommendation — 'your comparison assumes these countries are comparable on institutional capacity — are they?', 'your reform recommendation — who loses from it and have you accounted for their political response?'. This Q&A satisfies the ADVERSARIAL VERIFICATION RULE.
Proof required
Q&A notes (250+ words) documenting the reviewer's social policy or welfare research credentials, at least three specific challenges to the analysis or recommendation with responses, and any updates committed to.
What gets checked
- Reviewer is a social policy academic, welfare researcher, or policy practitioner
- At least three specific challenges to the analysis or recommendation are documented
- At least one analysis update is committed to
Common mistakes
- Reviewer validates without challenging comparability assumptions
- Not being able to identify who loses from the reform recommendation under challenge
- No updates after a genuine challenge to effectiveness evidence or comparability
Powstik Guide
Your policy analysis, challenged by a welfare researcher.
Steps
- Check your comparison cases are really comparable.
- Name who loses under your reform.
- Book a social policy academic or practitioner.
- Ask for three challenges to evidence and reform.
Template
Challenge session log Date: Duration: Reviewer name: Reviewer role and credentials: Challenge 1 (comparability 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 doesn't test comparability.
- No answer to who loses.
- No update after the session.
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Confirm reviewer is a social policy academic, welfare researcher, or policy practitioner
- Review Q&A notes — confirm at least three specific challenges are documented
- Check that at least one analysis update is committed to
You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.