The arc
You've identified your city and its geology in your Hazard Profile. Now you're going to design a city plan that maximizes population saved against a fixed budget, iterate that plan three times in the Tectonic City Builder, reflect on what changed across iterations, and defend your final design in a 5-minute pitch.
The four deliverables
- Three (or more) simulator attempts. Play your chosen scenario at least three times. Capture each attempt's final score, grade, budget used, and a screenshot of your placements into your engineering journal. Iterations 1, 2, and 3 are the minimum. Iteration 4 is optional and may improve your score. (Auto-logging to a Sessions Sheet is coming. See the launcher page; until then, manual capture.)
- Engineering journal entries. Before each iteration, write or record a prediction: what change are you making, why, and what do you expect to happen? After each iteration, write or record a reflection: what actually happened, and how does it match your prediction? 2–3 sentences each. Specificity beats length. Format options: typed in the journal doc, voice memo with auto-transcription, or paired journaling.
- Comparative Reflection (1 page). Written between your second and third iteration. Prompt: name one specific engineering decision you changed between attempts, and explain, using a specific geology concept, why that change had the effect it did. Then compare your scenario to a classmate's different scenario: why does the same building+tech yield different outcomes across boundary types? ≤500 words OR 90-second video.
- Final Defense. ≤5 slides + 5-minute presentation + 2-min Q&A. Defend your final city design to a peer panel of "city councillors."
Defense slide structure (required content)
Your budget was fixed, so some protection you would have liked is not in your design. Which losses did your design decide to accept, and what makes that an acceptable judgment rather than an oversight?
This one cannot be answered by reciting what you found. It asks what your work shows about how this kind of problem behaves, which is the part that travels to the next unit.
| Slide | Content |
|---|---|
| 1 | Your city + boundary + dominant hazards (lifted directly from your Hazard Profile; reuse it). |
| 2 | Your final design: annotated screenshot of your city. Walk the panel through three engineering decisions. |
| 3 | Iteration evidence: score progression across attempts. A simple chart, or screenshots of your Sessions Sheet rows. |
| 4 | Historical anchoring: reference at least two case studies, with specific engineering claims tied to each. Not "Tōhoku was bad"; instead "Tōhoku showed that seawalls sized for expected events fail at actual M9 run-up heights, which is why I spent on tsunami walls AND relocated my hospitals inland." |
| 5 | What you'd do differently with double the budget, and why. This is where you show you understand the trade-offs you couldn't resolve. |
Timeline mapped to blocks
- Block 6: Iteration #1 + journal entry
- Block 7: Iteration #2 + journal entry
- Block 8: Comparative Reflection due
- Block 9: Iteration #3 + start defense slides
- Block 10: Defense rehearsal + optional Iteration #4
- Blocks 11–12: Final defenses delivered
Alternative formats (with prior approval by Block 9)
- Recorded video defense: same five-slide structure; recorded with you on camera presenting.
- Written essay defense (~1500 words): same five required elements, written rather than presented.
Talk to Ms. Jayanthi/Mr. Matt if you want one of these. No penalty for using an alternative. The rubric is the same.
How this is scored
Scored against the AISC strand rubric (K/U / T/T / C). The Engineering Portfolio applies that rubric specifically to: Science Accuracy, Engineering Reasoning, Iteration Evidence, and Historical Synthesis. See The Rubric for the full bands.
Standards: HS-ETS1-3 and HS-ETS1-4 primary; HS-ETS1-1, HS-ETS1-2, and HS-ESS3-3 secondary; science practices SEP-2, SEP-5, SEP-6, and SEP-7.