Block 8: Goldilocks Report Drafting: Substantive Writing Block
Quote from a 1996 announcement: 'We may have found life on Mars.' (Refers to ALH84001 meteorite, since heavily disputed.)
Task: What changed between 1996 and now? What does this story tell us about how 'we found habitability' claims should be evaluated?
Answer in your Field Notebook, dated.
I have a complete first draft of the Goldilocks Report with at least four sources cited (one of which is the NASA Exoplanet Archive) and the AI Documentation Template completed for every substantive AI conversation.
I can explain how the Sun makes its energy and how that energy reaches and warms Earth.
"Develop a model based on evidence to illustrate the life span of the sun and the role of nuclear fusion in the sun's core to release energy that eventually reaches Earth in the form of radiation."
Where this runs:
- U1 B4: Habitable Zone, AU, Light-year: Scale of the Cosmos
- U1 B7: Habitability Framework: Building the Comparison
- U1 B8: Goldilocks Report Drafting: Substantive Writing Block ← you are here
Assessed:
Goldilocks Report: framework criteria involving the host star (K/U strand, Component 1 locks U1 Block 7)
On track looks like:
Your habitability framework treats the host star as an energy source with numbers attached (luminosity, HZ range), not just 'the planet needs sunlight.'
I can use AI to make MY work better, and show exactly who changed what.
In brief: "Direct generative AI to elicit feedback, refine work, and support reflection (paraphrased)"
Where this runs:
- U1 B8: Goldilocks Report Drafting: Substantive Writing Block ← you are here
- U1 B9: NASA Stakeholder Q&A Prep: Practicing the Defense
- U2 B8: Landscape Reading Drafting + Peer Feedback
- U4 B10: Climate Brief Work Day + Worked-Example Brief + Peer Feedback
- U4 B11: Climate Brief Final Drafting + Panel Rehearsal
Assessed:
Revision Trail: practiced U1/U2 Block 8, assessed with the U5 Position Paper
On track looks like:
Your trail has modified and rejected rows, not just accepted ones; the judgment stays yours.
I choose when to use AI and when to think it through myself, and I can defend either choice.
In brief: "Decide whether AI is the right tool for a task before using it (paraphrased)"
Where this runs:
- U0 B3: AI as a Source + Documentation Protocol
- U0 B5: Source Dossier Work Day 2: AI Source + Documentation
- U0 B7: Defenses + Unit Close
- U1 B8: Goldilocks Report Drafting: Substantive Writing Block ← you are here
- U1 B10: NASA Committee Q&A + Unit Reflection
- U2 B8: Landscape Reading Drafting + Peer Feedback
- U4 B10: Climate Brief Work Day + Worked-Example Brief + Peer Feedback
- U4 B11: Climate Brief Final Drafting + Panel Rehearsal
Assessed:
AI-use log across the year; the defended not-using-AI reflection
On track looks like:
You can name a step where you chose NOT to use AI, and your reason survives a 'why?'
What today is about
Drafting day. The framework + the exoplanet + the writing converge into a Report.
You have the framework from Block 7 (5–7 criteria, fully justified). You have your locked exoplanet from Block 6. You have your Earth baseline and your Mars failed-habitable analysis. Today you write the Report. The Kepler-22 b worked example uses six sections: (1) Why I picked this planet, (2) My framework, (3) Earth as baseline, (4) Mars as failed-habitable case, (5) Chosen exoplanet against the framework, (6) Cross-case synthesis + verdict + NASA recommendation. Open the worked example handout on your desk while you write.
Honesty is the move. The strongest verdict isn't the most enthusiastic one; it's the one that names its uncertainty and tells the NASA committee exactly what data would change its mind. From the worked example on Kepler-22 b: "Honest reading: Kepler-22 b passes my framework on the stellar + orbital criteria but probably fails on composition, and composition is the most foundational requirement." That's a defensible verdict. "Kepler-22 b is Earth's twin" is not.
AI is a writing partner today, and every conversation gets logged. The Planet Hunter is for criterion-by-criterion exoplanet reasoning. The Source Evaluator is for OPVL on the NASA Exoplanet Archive entries you cite. The Skeptic is for stress-testing your verdict before the panel does. Every substantive conversation goes into the AI Documentation Template; the missing-template gate means the work is not scored until it arrives.
Before you start the work
Keep these open. They are the references you reach for while you draft.
Today's work: choose one path
Three real paths through the draft. All three end at a complete first draft + AI Documentation.
Open your Class Notebook and type today's entry header as Heading 2:
A: Oct 7 | U1 B8 | Goldilocks Report Drafting: Substantive Writing BlockB: Oct 8 | U1 B8 | Goldilocks Report Drafting: Substantive Writing Block
What you're submitting today
Two components of the Goldilocks Report lock today: Earth + Mars baseline (K/U) and OPVL on 3 sources (T/T).
Drafted Earth and Mars sections of your Report: each criterion in your framework evaluated against both planets, with Mars failure mechanisms explained (not just "Mars is cold and dry"). Ms. Jayanthi/Mr. Ignash gives feedback + assigns a K/U band on this component.
Three sources OPVL'd: one must be your AI source (Planet Hunter conversation, AI summary of a habitability claim, etc.); the other two at your discretion. Specific Limitations beat generic ones. Ms. Jayanthi/Mr. Ignash gives feedback + assigns a T/T band on this component.
Also today: your first Revision Trail: the one-page draft-to-final record of who changed what (you, a peer, or an AI). Template in Classroom; attach it to your draft. First practice run: feedback, not a grade.
Submit via Google Classroom (link posted in August)One question before you leave
Three to five minutes. Your answer is saved to your reflection journal, where you can read back everything you have written this year.
Stake a position. Block 9 will help you defend or revise it.
Today's reflection is in Google Classroom, under Reflection Journal.
Link posted in AugustSign in with your school account. Your teacher can see what you write here.