Block 9: Iteration
Iteration #3 is your last logged attempt.
Task: Predict your final score, and name the single change most likely to get you there.
Answer in your Field Notebook, dated.
I have Iteration #3 logged (my personal-best attempt) AND a first draft of my five defense slides.
I can judge a design by weighing its trade-offs: cost, safety, who it protects, who it leaves out.
"Evaluate a solution to a complex real-world problem based on prioritized criteria and trade-offs that account for a range of constraints, including cost, safety, reliability, and aesthetics, as well as possible social, cultural, and environmental impacts."
Where this runs:
- U3 B9: Iteration ← you are here
- U3 B10: Defense Rehearsal + Optional Final Iteration
- U3 B11: Final Defenses Day 1
- U4 B9: Adaptation vs. Mitigation: What Chennai Can Actually Do
Assessed:
Final Defense (C + T/T)
On track looks like:
Your defense names what your design sacrifices, not just what it achieves.
I can use a simulation to test how my design choices play out before committing to them.
"Use a computer simulation to model the impact of proposed solutions to a complex real-world problem with numerous criteria and constraints on interactions within and between systems relevant to the problem."
Where this runs:
- U3 B4: Whole-Class Sim + First Independent Attempt
- U3 B6: Scenario Choice + Iteration
- U3 B7: Cross-Scenario Discussion + Iteration
- U3 B9: Iteration ← you are here
Assessed:
Engineering Design Portfolio: logged sim iterations (T/T)
On track looks like:
Each iteration is tested in the simulator and its outputs cited as evidence: changed, run, compared.
I can set criteria for what a good AI tool does, then test it and say where it falls short.
In brief: "Evaluate AI systems using defined criteria, expected outcomes, test cases, and user feedback (paraphrased; full framework at ailiteracyframework.org)"
Where this runs:
- U3 B9: Iteration ← you are here
Assessed:
U3 rehearsal on a teacher-built partner; assessed at U5 on the Stakeholder Voice bot-evaluation protocol and roundtable
On track looks like:
Your test cases include one the bot should fail, and you can say what its failure tells you about who it does not represent.
This block is a Phase 6 stub
Full content lands when Unit 3 is built out further.
Block 9 is Iteration Attempt #3, the personal-best target and the final logged attempt unless Block 10 optional is taken. The block then shifts to defense draft work: slide drafting (≤5 slides per the Engineering Portfolio handout) with teacher conferencing rotation. Pair-up for Block 10 rehearsal at close.
You have spent three iterations using design criteria on a building. Now use them on a tool.
- Write three criteria for what a good hazard-advice AI partner does. What must it do, what must it never do, and who must it serve?
- Write two test cases with the answer you expect. At least one must be designed to fail: an ambiguous question, something outside its scope, or a user it was not built for.
- Run both against the partner and record what actually happened.
- One paragraph: where did it fall short, and what does that tell you about who this partner does not serve well?
Hand in the criteria, the two test cases with expected against actual, and the paragraph. One page.
Open your Class Notebook and type today's entry header as Heading 2:
A: Dec 10 | U3 B9 | IterationB: Dec 11 | U3 B9 | Iteration