The Goldilocks Report is graded as a sequence of 10 components, each tied to a rubric strand and each due on a specific block. You get feedback and a locked strand mark on each component when it's due, not all at the end. By the time you arrive at the Block 10 defense, K/U and T/T are mostly already marked; only the Communication-strand components (final assembled Report + 3–4 min pitch + Q&A responses) get scored on the day itself.
Each strand band (1–2 / 3–4 / 5–6 / 7–8) is given on each component as it locks. Your overall K/U / T/T / C marks for the unit are the holistic combination of those per-component bands. Ms. Jayanthi/Mr. Ignash logs the bands in Google Classroom's rubric; you see your running progression there.
Submission via Google Classroom (default), with alternative formats for the final Report (≤1500-word written, 6-min captioned video, or annotated infographic) pre-approved by Ms. Jayanthi/Mr. Ignash by Block 6.
Before anything is banded
The ten components below start locking at Block 7. Before that, two checkpoints give you feedback with no band attached. They exist so that the first piece of work that counts is not also the first piece of work you have tried.
| When | What you hand in | What comes back |
|---|---|---|
| Block 2 | Your systems diagram: four spheres, at least three arrows with verbs on them, one loop marked + or −, and one sentence on what puts buried matter back into circulation. | Written feedback. No band. |
| Block 5 | An OPVL on one exoplanet source, including an AI source. Limitations must name that source, not sources in general. | Written feedback. No band. This is the rehearsal for Component 3, which does lock at Block 8. |
Component due-date table
Ten components, three blocks of locking, no end-of-unit surprise:
| # | Component | Due | Strand |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Habitability framework (5–7 conditions; specific + detectable + justified) | Block 7 | K/U |
| 2 | Earth + Mars baseline analysis (drafted section) | Block 8 | K/U |
| 3 | OPVL on 3 sources (one of which is your AI source) | Block 8 | T/T |
| 4 | Exoplanet analysis (5–7 criteria evaluated, with UNKNOWN as a legitimate verdict) | Block 9 | T/T |
| 5 | Cross-case synthesis paragraph (non-obvious patterns across Earth + Mars + exoplanet) | Block 9 | T/T |
| 6 | AI Documentation log (every substantive AI conversation logged with OPVL + "one thing the AI got wrong") | Block 9 | K/U |
| 7 | Final Report assembled (written / video / infographic; submitted at start of Block 10) | Block 10 | C |
| 8 | Stakeholder Q&A pitch (3–4 min, live or video alt-format) | Block 10 | C |
| 9 | Q&A responses (2 min peer Q&A under NASA-committee framing) | Block 10 | C |
| 10 | Unit-close reflection | Block 10 | Formative (not strand-marked; required) |
What "locks" means. When a component is due, you submit it, Ms. Jayanthi/Mr. Ignash gives feedback and assigns the strand band for that component. The band is locked; that component doesn't re-mark. Feedback from earlier components carries forward into later ones (you learn from it), but the per-component bands don't change retroactively. This is why each due-date matters: the band you get on the Block 7 framework is part of your overall K/U mark, full stop. There's no "revise it all at the end" pass.
Why you're doing this
This is the unit summative. You build a habitability framework (what conditions does life as we know it require?) and apply it to three cases: Earth (the baseline), Mars (the failed-habitable case), and one exoplanet you choose. The Report is a comparative analysis. The Stakeholder Q&A in Block 10 is where you defend it to peers playing a NASA evaluation committee deciding which exoplanet warrants the next deep observation.
The Report does triple duty: it assesses the unit's content (habitability conditions), it exercises OPVL on planetary data + AI, and it launches systems thinking at planetary scale. The Stakeholder Q&A introduces the audience-defense format you'll use in every subsequent unit summative: U3 Engineering Defense, U4 Climate Brief panel, U5 Stakeholder Roundtable, U6 Planning Board, U7 Public Op-Ed.
GRASPS framing
| Element | Description |
|---|---|
| Goal | Build a habitability framework and apply it to three planets (Earth, Mars, and a chosen exoplanet) to decide which planet beyond Earth is the strongest candidate for further study. |
| Role | Scientific advisor preparing a recommendation for a NASA evaluation committee. |
| Audience | Peer classmates acting as a NASA evaluation committee. Each student's Report contributes to the class's collective recommendation. Secondary audience: your future selves who will encounter habitability claims in news and pop-sci. |
| Situation | NASA has limited deep-observation time available. Your job is to defend why the exoplanet you analyzed is (or is not) the best candidate. Evaluate Earth first as a baseline, Mars as a contrast case showing how habitability can be lost, and your exoplanet as the unknown. |
| Product | Goldilocks Report (≤1500 words OR 6-min captioned video OR annotated infographic), including: habitability framework (5–7 conditions, explicitly defined), comparative analysis of Earth + Mars + chosen exoplanet, AI Documentation Template (required if AI used), and a 3–4 min Stakeholder Q&A pitch + 2 min peer Q&A. |
| Standards | HS-ESS1-1, HS-ESS1-2, HS-ESS1-4, HS-ESS2-2. Secondary: HS-ESS1-3, HS-ESS2-4. |
Step 1: Choose your exoplanet
Pick one. Conferences open in Block 4; choice locks in Block 6. If you want to propose an exoplanet not on this list, talk to Ms. Jayanthi/Mr. Ignash by Block 5.
| Exoplanet | Host star | Why this one is interesting |
|---|---|---|
| TRAPPIST-1 e | Ultra-cool dwarf (TRAPPIST-1) | One of seven Earth-sized planets in a single system. Three potentially in the habitable zone. Heavily studied; lots of sources. |
| Proxima Centauri b | M-dwarf (Proxima Centauri) | Closest known exoplanet (4.2 ly). In the habitable zone, but M-dwarf flares are a major concern for atmospheric retention. |
| K2-18 b | M-dwarf (K2-18) | Water vapor detected in atmosphere by Hubble + JWST. Possible hycean (hydrogen-ocean) world. Habitability claims are recent and contested. |
| Kepler-186 f | M-dwarf (Kepler-186) | First Earth-sized planet confirmed in a habitable zone. 580 light-years away, too far for direct atmospheric study, so OPVL on the available data is essential. |
| Kepler-452 b | Sun-like (Kepler-452) | Often called "Earth's older cousin." Larger than Earth (1.6 Earth radii), so possibly a super-Earth or mini-Neptune. Pop-sci coverage is enthusiastic; primary data is more cautious. |
| LHS 1140 b | M-dwarf (LHS 1140) | Rocky, in habitable zone, around a quiet M-dwarf. Excellent target for JWST atmospheric observations. Less media coverage = harder OPVL practice. |
| TOI 700 d | M-dwarf (TOI 700) | Discovered by TESS. Earth-sized in habitable zone. Recent enough that you see how scientific consensus forms in real time. |
| Gliese 581 d | M-dwarf (Gliese 581) | Controversial: once thought habitable; later analyses suggest the detection may have been a stellar activity artifact. Excellent for L (Limitations) practice in OPVL. |
Step 2: Build your habitability framework
Define 5–7 conditions you think a planet needs to support life as we know it. Each condition must be:
- Specific. "Liquid surface water" not "the right environment."
- Detectable. A condition you could in principle test against data: atmospheric composition, surface temperature range, magnetic field presence, distance from host star.
- Justified. A one-sentence mechanism for why this condition matters for life.
The Planet Hunter is the right partner here; it will push you to define what habitability means in your framework before evaluating any planet. The Systems Diagrammer helps if your framework involves coupled subsystems (e.g. "atmosphere ↔ magnetic field" rather than two separate criteria).
Step 3: Compare across cases
Evaluate each of your 5–7 criteria against three cases:
- Earth: the baseline. Every criterion should be a MEETS for Earth, otherwise rethink the criterion.
- Mars: the failed-habitable case. Identify which criteria Mars meets, partially meets, and fails. The failure mechanisms matter: "Mars is cold and dry" is not enough; explain why.
- Your chosen exoplanet: the unknown. For each criterion: MEETS, PARTIAL, FAILS, or UNKNOWN. UNKNOWN is a legitimate verdict for some criteria: what data don't we have yet?
The T/T strand lives here. Cross-case synthesis (patterns across the three planets that aren't obvious from looking at any one) is what separates Exemplary from Proficient. Examples: "both Mars and Proxima b face atmospheric retention challenges, but for different reasons" or "the habitable zone criterion is a necessary but very weak filter."
Step 3a: OPVL your 3 sources
By Block 8, you have three sources OPVL'd in your dossier: Origin / Purpose / Value / Limitation on each. One of the three must be the AI source you used (Planet Hunter conversation, AI summary of a contested habitability claim, etc.). The other two are at your discretion: typically one primary (NASA Exoplanet Archive, a peer-reviewed atmospheric-spectroscopy paper) and one secondary (a Nature News article, an ESA press release, a Sky & Telescope piece). The 3-source OPVL is a T/T component on its own; it locks at Block 8 and contributes to your T/T strand mark.
Recommended primary source. If you're writing about a TRAPPIST-1 planet, Thompson et al. (2022) (the atmospheric-methane biosignature paper you previewed in U0 Block 2) is an excellent peer-reviewed source you've already OPVL'd: you know what it's good for and what it isn't. Lovelock (1965) is the conceptual origin of the same idea if you want to trace how the field's thinking developed. Both PDFs are in Google Classroom.
The Limitation you write on the AI source is the one to push hardest on. "AI can hallucinate" is generic; "the Planet Hunter cited the wrong atmospheric scale height for K2-18 b: actual is X, AI gave Y" is specific. Specific Limitations are what move T/T from 5-6 to 7-8.
Step 4: Defend in the Stakeholder Q&A
Block 10 is the audience defense. Format:
- 3–4 min pitch. Your verdict on whether your exoplanet warrants further NASA observation, supported by your framework analysis.
- 2 min peer Q&A. Two or more questions from classmates playing the NASA committee. Strong responses cite evidence, acknowledge appropriate uncertainty, and identify at least one place where the science is genuinely contested or unknown.
Rehearse with the Skeptic (stress-test your verdict before the panel sees it) and the Defense Practice Partner (role-play the audience for solo rehearsal). Block 9 is the in-class rehearsal day.
T/T: Exoplanet analysis (Component 4). The exoplanet section is the T/T move. If it's missing or trivial at Block 9 (one or two criteria addressed; no genuine evaluation against available evidence), that is what the lower T/T-exoplanet band describes, and that band is part of your overall T/T mark. No strand is capped. Other strong T/T components (OPVL, synthesis) can lift the holistic verdict, but they can't substitute for a thin exoplanet analysis.
K/U: AI Documentation log (Component 6). If you used any AI partner at any stage and the AI Documentation Template isn't in your dossier by Block 9, the K/U-AI-Doc band scores 1-2 Limited (the work isn't there to evaluate). Other K/U components (framework, baseline) can lift the holistic K/U verdict, but the missing component still pulls it down. The documentation is the work, not an add-on.
Format guidance
- Written Report: ≤1500 words. Google Doc or PDF.
- Video Report: 6 min max, fully captioned. Show your framework on screen.
- Annotated infographic: One large visual artifact with annotation. Same depth requirements as written.
Format doesn't affect scoring: all three formats are scored against the same rubric. Pick the one that fits how you think best, not the one that looks easiest.
How this is scored
Scored against the AISC strand rubric: K/U / T/T / C. See the full rubric for the strand definitions.
Rolling-summative reminder. The K/U / T/T / C bands below describe the overall strand verdict. Under this unit's rolling-summative pattern, you get a band on each component as it locks (see the component due-date table above). The holistic strand mark at the end is the combination of those per-component bands: strong components lift the holistic verdict, weak components pull it down, and there's no end-of-unit re-mark of components that already locked. Ms. Jayanthi/Mr. Ignash's running rubric in Google Classroom is where you see this strand-by-strand as the unit progresses.
K/U: Knowledge & Understanding
| Band | Descriptor |
|---|---|
| 7–8 Exemplary | Habitability criteria are well-chosen (5–7 specific, detectable, life-relevant conditions) with each justified by underlying science. Discipline-specific vocabulary (habitable zone, transit method, M-dwarf, AU, light-year, magnetic field, plate tectonics) used accurately throughout. Earth and Mars baselines correctly characterized: Earth's conditions named accurately, Mars's failures explained with mechanism. |
| 5–6 Proficient | Habitability criteria are reasonable (5–7) with most justified accurately; one or two are generic or weakly justified. Vocabulary mostly accurate; minor errors in technical terms. Earth and Mars baselines mostly accurate; Mars's failure mechanism may be partially explained. |
| 3–4 Developing | Habitability criteria are present but fewer than 5, or include criteria that aren't detectable / aren't justified. Vocabulary inconsistent or imprecise. Earth baseline mostly correct but Mars analysis is superficial: "Mars is cold and dry" without explaining why or when. |
| 1–2 Limited | Little knowledge of habitability or planetary science. Criteria missing, generic, or unjustified. Vocabulary largely absent or misused. Earth and Mars analyses minimal or factually incorrect. |
T/T: Thinking & Transfer
| Band | Descriptor |
|---|---|
| 7–8 Exemplary | Highly effective ability to apply habitability reasoning to a new context. Exoplanet analysis is substantive: each criterion genuinely evaluated against available evidence with acknowledged uncertainty. Cross-case synthesis identifies non-obvious patterns. OPVL applied to 3 sources including the AI source; at least one Limitation is specific and substantive. Verdict defensible and explicitly acknowledges what we don't know. |
| 5–6 Proficient | Proficient ability to apply the framework. Exoplanet analysis is reasonable; most criteria evaluated; some may be more superficial. Cross-case synthesis present but covers expected rather than non-obvious comparisons. OPVL applied but Limitations on the AI source are general ("AI can hallucinate") rather than specific. Verdict defensible but may overstate certainty. |
| 3–4 Developing | Some ability to apply the framework but transfer underdeveloped. Exoplanet evaluations uneven: some criteria addressed, others ignored. Cross-case synthesis missing or superficial. OPVL of the AI source weak or generic. Verdict may be unsupported by preceding analysis. |
| 1–2 Limited | Limited transfer. Exoplanet analysis missing, incorrect, or based on a single source taken uncritically. No cross-case synthesis. OPVL absent or trivially applied. Verdict missing or unrelated to evidence presented. |
C: Communication
| Band | Descriptor |
|---|---|
| 7–8 Exemplary | Report extremely clear with logical structure; ideas fully developed and concise. Scientific vocabulary precise and consistently used. Sources cited consistently and integrated effectively. Stakeholder Q&A pitch well-paced and audience-appropriate; responses confident, substantive, specific. AI Documentation clearly written. |
| 5–6 Proficient | Report mainly clear with mostly logical structure. Ideas mostly developed; concise enough for audience. Vocabulary precise most of the time. Citations proficient with minor inconsistencies. Stakeholder Q&A pitch delivers content clearly; responses clear but may lack depth. |
| 3–4 Developing | Report somewhat clear; structure attempted but not always easy to follow. Ideas generally developed but may lack concision or detail. Some vocabulary used correctly with significant errors. Citations have errors or omissions. Stakeholder Q&A pitch uneven; responses partial. |
| 1–2 Limited | Report unclear. Ideas underdeveloped. Beginner-level vocabulary. Citations missing or unreliable. Stakeholder Q&A pitch lacks structure; responses minimal or off-topic. |
AI Documentation
Every substantive AI partner conversation that informed your Report must be documented in the AI Documentation Template and submitted alongside the Report. Same rules as the Unit 0 Source Dossier: log the prompt, the response, your OPVL on the response, and the "one thing the AI got wrong" entry. If you used the Planet Hunter to evaluate your exoplanet, the Systems Diagrammer to refine a feedback loop, or the Source Evaluator to OPVL a NASA archive entry, document each one. Missing documentation triggers the K/U gate above.