Skip to content

Final Presentation: Evaluation Rubric

I use this to grade. Students see it 24 hours in advance.

For each axis, score 1–5:

  • 5 Excellent: staff-level quality
  • 4 Strong: senior-level quality
  • 3 Solid: mid-level quality; few rough edges
  • 2 Developing: promising but several gaps
  • 1 Needs work: missed the brief on this axis
AxisWhat we look forScore
ClarityCould a non-engineer follow the story? Pacing, transitions, audience-aware language.__ / 5
EvidenceNumbers are real, sourced, apples-to-apples. Baselines are present. % changes have absolute context.__ / 5
TradeoffsThe presenter acknowledged what their changes cost, not just what they gained. Risks are named.__ / 5
RecommendationA clear "this is what we should do next" lands. Rollout plan is concrete. Credit the Session 7 enforcement mechanism they actually committed (pre-commit hook, lint rule, or PR template) as a shipped deliverable.__ / 5
PolishSlides are clean. Presenter was comfortable with the material. Time was respected.__ / 5

Total: __ / 25


What each level looks like

Clarity 5

  • The first 30 seconds set up the problem so clearly the room nodded.
  • Every slide has one idea; no slide has paragraphs.
  • The presenter never said "as you can see on this slide…"

Evidence 5

  • Every number on a slide has a source you trust.
  • The presenter caught their own apples-to-oranges comparison before being asked.
  • Both absolute and relative changes are shown.

Tradeoffs 5

  • The presenter explicitly named what their change costs.
  • They flagged at least one assumption they'd test before committing.
  • They didn't oversell.

Recommendation 5

  • The "what to do next" was unambiguous.
  • The rollout plan had a measurable success criterion.
  • The presenter would defend the recommendation in cross-examination.
  • They showed the enforcement mechanism they committed in Session 7 (pre-commit hook, lint rule, or PR template), not just the policy docs.

Polish 5

  • Hit the time exactly.
  • Slides match the OAF template; no template debris.
  • Presenter was relaxed; the slides were the supporting cast.

How feedback is delivered

After each presentation:

  • Verbal (1 min): one strength, one push, both rubric-grounded.
  • Written (within 1 week): paragraph per student, with the rubric scores attached.