| Feature | Details |
|---|---|
| Engagement | Weaker execution: Narrates activities; Stronger execution: Selects engagement evidence to advance political claims |
| Concepts | Weaker execution: Defines terminology; Stronger execution: Uses concepts to interpret evidence and test competing explanations |
| Perspectives | Weaker execution: Lists different views; Stronger execution: Compares position, evidence and political significance |
| Evaluation | Weaker execution: Adds generic limitations; Stronger execution: Explains how limitations alter the confidence or scope of judgment |
| Conclusion | Weaker execution: Repeats earlier points; Stronger execution: Answers the exact inquiry question with a calibrated judgment |
| Weak move | Details |
|---|---|
| Topic-only opening | Why it limits marks: The political contest and operation of power remain unclear; Direct upgrade: Name the decision arena, actors, affected groups, stakes and power mechanism |
| Activity diary | Why it limits marks: Chronology does not prove a developed process; Direct upgrade: Show preparation, purpose, feedback loops, adaptations and retained records |
| Quotation stacking | Why it limits marks: Perspectives are reported but not synthesised; Direct upgrade: Compare position, evidence, incentives and explanatory value in one judgment |
| Concept name-dropping | Why it limits marks: Terminology does not change the interpretation; Direct upgrade: Explain exactly how the concept reveals a relationship, mechanism or outcome |
| Generic limitation | Why it limits marks: The limitation has no consequence for the answer; Direct upgrade: State what the evidence cannot establish and narrow confidence accordingly |
| Vague recommendation | Why it limits marks: No actor can implement or evaluate it; Direct upgrade: Specify actor, action, target, timeframe, mechanism, risk and indicator |