Diagrams are accurate and correctly labelled according to IB conventions

Both short-run AD shifts and long-run LRAS shifts are clearly shown and linked to text

Equilibrium movements (Y₁→Y₂ and PL₁→PL₂) are explicitly discussed

Curve labels and figure captions lack clarity—no on-graph labels or legend

Final explanation is cut off mid-thought, leaving part of the diagram discussion incomplete

Economic terminology (e.g. ‘interventionist supply-side policy’, ‘allocative efficiency’, ‘positive externality’, ‘LRAS’, ‘PED’) is used consistently and accurately

Key vocabulary is integrated naturally into the argument without misuse

Relevant macroeconomic theory (supply-side policy, AD/LRAS framework, externalities) is applied consistently

Analysis identifies real-world constraints (inflation, supply-chain disruptions) and links them to model outcomes

Discussion remains largely qualitative without quantitative integration (e.g. budget figures, elasticity estimates)

SRAS is omitted, limiting the depth of short-run price adjustment analysis

The concept of efficiency is clearly and repeatedly identified as the central theme

Full linkage between allocative and productive efficiency and specific article details (costs, emissions, trade-offs) is provided

Balanced judgments are attempted (e.g. track versus station prioritisation)

Logical reasoning underpins each judgment

Evaluation lacks discussion of alternative policy options and stakeholder power dynamics

Judgments remain qualitative with no clear prioritisation or ranking of policy outcomes