Pre-Semester Launchpad: Rubric and Passing Standards

This rubric applies to the semester-level checkpoint, exam, and project. Use it with the answer key and solution outlines to keep grading consistent and learner-visible.

Readiness supplement

Also complete the readiness diagnostic and repairs. Computer, arithmetic and technical-reading evidence is required before Semester 00; algebra is required before Semester 01. Timing targets in this document are practice estimates, not automatic failure conditions. Assess correctness, explanation and independent transfer with accessibility tools as needed. Study consistency includes recovery from interruption; a perfect attendance streak is not a prerequisite.

Minimum Passing Standard

To pass Pre-Semester Launchpad, the learner must satisfy all of the following:

• Checkpoint: at least 12/15 prompts are answered correctly and independently, using the one-point criteria and critical gates in the checkpoint.
• Exam: overall score is at least 75%, and each of the four exam sections is at least 70%, preserving the practical exam’s stricter thresholds.
• Project: all required deliverables are present, the artifact can be inspected or reproduced by another person, and the learner can defend the main tradeoffs.
• Integrity: sources, collaboration, generated assistance, and borrowed code or examples are acknowledged.
• Remediation: a conditional pass remains incomplete until the required repair is demonstrated on a fresh case; revisiting a page alone is insufficient.

Failure in any one of these categories means the semester should not be marked complete yet, even if the other artifacts look strong.

Grading Rubric

Dimension	Needs repair	Minimum pass	Strong pass	Excellent / portfolio-ready
Concept command	Uses terms loosely or confuses core ideas.	Defines and applies the required concepts with minor gaps.	Explains concepts through examples, counterexamples, and constraints.	Teaches the ideas clearly and connects them across semesters.
Reasoning quality	Jumps to answers; hides assumptions.	Shows enough steps to inspect correctness.	Makes assumptions, invariants, and tradeoffs explicit.	Compares alternatives and anticipates edge cases or objections.
Evidence	Claims are unsupported or impossible to reproduce.	Provides inspectable files, histories, observations or outputs.	Evidence targets the riskiest claims and is easy to verify.	Evidence is organized as a review packet a third party can audit.
Semester integration	Treats modules as unrelated topics.	Connects the main semester themes to the assessment.	Synthesizes multiple modules in one coherent explanation or artifact.	Shows how mastery of readiness systems, study loops, environment setup, and basic computational habits shapes engineering judgment beyond the course examples.
Communication	Hard to follow; missing context.	Understandable and complete enough to grade.	Clear structure, named decisions, and concise explanations.	Professional presentation with honest limitations and next steps.

Strong Submission Traits

Strong submissions usually demonstrate these traits:

• concise explanations that reveal the mental model, not just the final answer
• concrete artifacts that can be run, checked, reviewed, or traced
• explicit handling of edge cases, constraints, and failure modes
• visible revision: mistakes were found, corrected, and documented
• appropriate connections between readiness systems, study loops, environment setup, and basic computational habits and the entry diagnostic

Common Weak Submission Patterns

Watch for these patterns during self-review:

• vocabulary recognition without the ability to apply the idea to a new prompt
• impressive-looking diagrams, code, or prose with no verification evidence
• hidden dependencies on tutorials, solution videos, or AI-generated answers
• project scope that is too broad to inspect or too narrow to prove the required skill
• missing reflection about tradeoffs, limitations, or what would be done differently

Calibration Decision Guide

• Pass: all minimum standards are met and weak patterns are minor.
• Conditional pass: the artifact is mostly sound, but one bounded repair is required before moving to Semester 0.
• Repeat / revisit: a core concept, core deliverable, or integrity requirement is missing.

When uncertain, grade against evidence rather than effort. Time spent is useful context, but the semester is complete only when the learner can demonstrate the outcomes.

Workload and advancement contract

Use Workload and Progression for the complete hour allocation, prerequisite order, evidence reuse, score thresholds and repair rules. Its estimates do not establish learner-tested duration. All required gates apply together; conditional pass means repair remains, not permission to skip a gate.

Preparation evidence added to Launchpad

Inspect the integrated preparation packet: passage/source audit; explanation, focused question and feedback revision; feasible plan with two real session observations and a labeled disruption rehearsal; state/destination reasoning with an actual content-checked restore and incomplete-control failure; and AI task/candidate audit with an independent changed-case result. Require SS1–SS3, R1–R3, C1–C3, S1–S3, DS1–DS3 and AL1–AL3 each at 2/2 under their linked module criteria.

These module assessments occur inside their own allocations. This document inspects and links their results; it does not repeat the full labs. Reuse the existing calendar, setup README and help request. Keep private information redacted, distinguish solo practice from human review, and label authored AI fixtures. Plans cannot substitute for actual required observations.

The original checkpoint, project and exam requirements remain. Exam weights stay 25/35/25/15 with 75% overall and 70% per section; preparation gates are separate and cannot be averaged away. A missing gate requires targeted repair, not repeating every completed module.

Module 2 also requires at least 18/20 on its quiz plus every required practical check; Module 3 requires at least 21/23 plus every required practical check. Inspect the linked beginner routes in the project. The project is complete/repair/pending, not another weighted grade. Two actual sessions on separate occasions and one planning-cycle review suffice for the observation requirement; imagined observations never count.