FINAL PRODUCT DESIGN DECISIONS (A) The candidate evidences design decisions in a manner that thoroughly addresses the multiple contextual, human needs, commercial and manufacturing factors of the solution. (B) The candidate evidences design decisions in a manner that suitably addresses the multiple contextual, human needs, commercial and manufacturing factors of the solution. (C) The candidate shows limited evidence of design decisions that addresses the multiple contextual, human needs, commercial and manufacturing factors of the solution. Or, proposes a solution/hypothesis that is “off the shelf” rather than individually designed to address the specific contextual factors of the problem. Or, design decisions are incomplete or superficial in considering the need for refinement. Or, the work is incomplete. Or, the work suffers from a level of effort substandard to that expected of a competent designer. (D) The candidate shows insufficient evidence of design decisions that addresses the multiple contextual, human needs, commercial and manufacturing factors of the solution. Or, proposes a solution/hypothesis that is difficult to evaluate because it is vague or only indirectly addresses the problem statement. Or, the work suffers from significant omission. Or, the work suffers from an effort level substandard to the professional requirements of a competent designer. (EF) There is not sufficient quality or evidence of work to achieve a pass this component.

RESULTS OF PROTOTYPE TESTING (A) The candidate continually develops, tests and reviews prototypes towards a valid solution with deep and thoughtful judgments, drawing insightful, carefully qualified conclusions from the testing. (B) The candidate continually develops, tests and reviews prototypes towards a valid solution with competent judgments, drawing reasonable and appropriately qualified conclusions from the testing. (C) The candidate develops, tests and reviews prototypes towards a valid solution with some suitable judgments, drawing plausible conclusions from the testing. Or, the work is incomplete. Or, the work suffers from a level of effort substandard to that expected of a competent designer. (D) The candidate develops, tests and reviews prototypes towards a valid solution with some suitable judgments, although is unclear or uncertain about deciding on conclusions from the testing. Or, the work suffers from significant omission. Or, the work suffers from an effort level substandard to the professional requirements of a competent designer. (EF) There is not sufficient quality or evidence of work to achieve a pass this component.

CAD marking criteria
(A++) As for A grade, with initial build in Solidworks and a second build in other software (A) High quality render, high quality extension work, professional presentation (B) Rendered, suitable extension work complete
(C) Tutorial completed and rendered (D) Tutorial incomplete or not rendered (E) CAD attempted
(F) No evidence

FEA marking criteria
(A++) As for A grade, with evidence of exceptional performance
(A) Accurate, thorough and clear evidence of problem solving, professional presentation (B) Accurate with suitable evidence (C) Mostly accurate with suitable evidence
(D) Inaccurate or lacking in evidence
(E) FEA attempted
(F) No evidence

CREATIVE BREADTH OF INNOVATION (A) Candidate has produced a wide range of creative proposals. Candidate has made significant progress in developing proposals. Synthesis is evident as are clearly defined summative conclusions. (B) Candidate has produced a suitable range of creative proposals. Incorporates new directions or approaches. Incorporates alternate and divergent ideas in an exploratory way. Synthesis is evident as are clearly defined summative conclusions. Or: Innovation, but some proposals are too closely assimilated to current conventions. (C) Limited breadth, candidate considers new directions or approaches without sufficiently stretching the boundaries of existing products. Includes (recognises the value of) alternate and divergent ideas in a small way. Limited innovation. Or, the work is incomplete. Or, the work suffers from a level of effort substandard to that expected of a competent designer. (D) Lack of breadth. Candidate stays mostly within current conventions. Acknowledges alternate and divergent ideas but provides too little scope for innovation. Or, the work suffers from significant omission. Or, the work suffers from an effort level substandard to the professional requirements of a competent designer. (EF) There is not sufficient quality or evidence of work to achieve a pass this component.

DEPTH OF TESTING AND DESIGN DECISIONS (A) Candidate demonstrates clear reasoning and an affinity with the needs of the user/client. Reviews viable prototyping results relative to the problem defined, with thorough testing and specific considerations of the needs of the user. Ideas are thoroughly developed. The development journey is clear, consistent and comprehensive. (B) Candidate demonstrates suitable reasoning and some affinity with the needs of the user/client. Reviews viable prototyping results relative to the problem defined, with suitable testing and specific considerations of the needs of the user. Most ideas are thoroughly developed. The development journey in most cases is clear and consistent. (C) Candidate demonstrates limited reasoning or little affinity with the needs of the user/client. Limited reviews of viable prototyping results relative to the problem defined, with limited testing and specific considerations of the needs of the user. Some ideas are suitably developed. The development journey is not always clear or consistent. Or, the work is incomplete. Or, the work suffers from a level of effort substandard to that expected of a competent designer. (D) Candidate demonstrates insufficient reasoning or little affinity with the needs of the user/client. Insufficient reviews of viable prototyping results relative to the problem defined, with insufficient testing and specific considerations of the needs of the user. Few ideas are thoroughly developed. The development journey is un-clear. Or, the work suffers from significant omission. Or, the work suffers from an effort level substandard to the professional requirements of a competent designer. (EF) There is not sufficient quality or evidence of work to achieve a pass this component.

RESEARCH FINDINGS (A) Research outcomes are analysed thoroughly and fully synthesised. Findings and conclusions clearly show that value generation is highly probable and there is clear scope for creating behavioural, emotional or cultural change. Ethics, Sustainability and Safety are critically considered. (B) Research outcomes are analysed and synthesised effectively. Findings and conclusions show that value generation is probable on the whole. The scope for generating change has been identified and is reasonably defined. Ethics, Sustainability and Safety to be considered critically are stated, described, and clarified so that understanding is not seriously impeded by omissions. (C) Research outcomes are analysed and synthesised. Findings and conclusions relate to a vague or imprecise value generation and an ill defined or assumed case for change. Ethics, Sustainability and Safety to be considered critically are stated but description leaves some terms undefined, ambiguities unexplored, boundaries undetermined, and/or backgrounds unknown. Some issues are either not clear or fully resolved. Or, the work is incomplete. Or, the work suffers from a level of effort substandard to that expected of a competent designer. (D) Research outcomes are not effectively analysed or synthesised. Findings and conclusions are of insufficient depth to justify a clear value proposition or case for change. Ethics, Sustainability and Safety to be considered critically are stated without clarification or description. Or, the work suffers from significant omission. Or, the work suffers from an effort level substandard to the professional requirements of a competent designer. (EF) There isn’t sufficient evidence and/or quality of work to achieve a pass this component.

DEFINED INTENT (A) Based on the research outcomes, a clear and insightful value proposition has been defined. A clear project direction has been set which is likely to bring value and change to all stakeholders. (B) A clear value proposition has been defined which takes into account most of the complexities of an issue. The project's direction is clear and stakeholders'' requirements and points of view are acknowledged. Value creation has been considered and is plausible. (C) The value proposition is defined, but it’s superficial, generic and/or lacks focus. Project direction suffers from assumptions, omissions and/or a lack of synthesis. Change is likely, but has not been fully defined. Or, the work is incomplete. Or, the work suffers from a level of effort substandard to that expected of a competent designer. (D) A limited value proposition. Project direction is stated, but is ambiguous and lacks clarity. Conclusion is inconsistently tied to some of the information discussed; related outcomes are oversimplified or assumed. The case for change is insufficient or flawed. Or, the work suffers from significant omission. Or, the work suffers from an effort level substandard to the professional requirements of a competent designer. (E) There isn’t sufficient evidence and/or quality of work to achieve a pass this component.

PRODUCT EVALUATION (A) The candidate reflects on the final contextual testing of the prototype and effectively proves the feasibility and viability of the proposal. (B) The candidate’s reflection on the final contextual testing of the prototype, to prove the feasibility and viability of the proposal, is sufficient in its explanation. (C) The candidate’s reflection on the final contextual testing of the prototype, to prove the feasibility and viability of the proposal, is incomplete, assumed, not fully proven or lacks depth. Or, the work suffers from a level of effort substandard to that expected of a competent designer. (D) The candidate’s reflection on the final contextual testing of the prototype, to prove the feasibility and viability of the proposal, is superficial and consists of cursory surface level explanation. Or, the work suffers from significant omission. Or, the work suffers from an effort level substandard to the professional requirements of a competent designer. (E) There is not sufficient quality or evidence of work to achieve a pass this component.

NEXT PHASE (A) Candidate identifies and actions the next phase based on the findings of the product evaluation with depth, and conveys an insightful understanding of future project direction and progress. (B) Candidate identifies and actions the next phase based on the findings of the product evaluation with suitable clarity, and conveys a clear or reasonable understanding of future project direction and progress. (C) Candidate identifies and actions the next phase based on the findings of the product evaluation with limited clarity or insight, and with limitations conveys an understanding of future project direction and progress. Or, the work is incomplete. Or, the work suffers from a level of effort substandard to that expected of a competent designer. (D) Candidate identifies and actions the next phase based on the findings of the product evaluation with superficial clarity or insight, and with limitations conveys a cursory understanding of future project direction and progress. Or, the work suffers from significant omission. Or, the work suffers from an effort level substandard to the professional requirements of a competent designer. (E) There is not sufficient quality or evidence of work to achieve a pass this component.