Checkpoint Gate
The checkpoint must verify that the World-Class Strand evidence exists, is reproducible, and has a written highest-risk gap.
The checkpoint must verify that the World-Class Strand evidence exists, is reproducible, and has a written highest-risk gap.
Required Output Classification
| Required output | Classification | Public/private guidance |
|---|---|---|
| Closed-book prompts, self-assessment answers, and skills matrices | Practice artifact | Use for honest calibration; do not publish raw answers unless rewritten as a study guide. |
| Required evidence gate items, sign-off checklist, and readiness decision | Checkpoint evidence | Keep as private progression evidence; share only sanitized summaries with mentors or reviewers. |
| Repair artifacts produced after a weak checkpoint, such as corrected solutions, diagrams, traces, benchmarks, or runbooks | Checkpoint evidence | Store beside the checkpoint so the remediation trail is inspectable without making mistakes public. |
| Reviewer notes or mentor feedback that materially improve a project artifact | Portfolio candidate | Convert into public-safe acknowledgements or changelog entries only after removing private feedback context. |
This gate is about honesty, not punishment. Semester 0 is complete only when you can explain the core ideas without leaning on copied notes and can show one small body of real work.
Self-Assessment: "Can I Do This Without Notes?"
Check each item only if you can demonstrate or explain it closed-book. For coding items, use only a blank editor.
Launchpad integration
- I can explain how my study system, editor, terminal, and Git workflow support later technical work.
- I can show one honest weekly review or tracker artifact and explain what changed because of it.
- I can create a branch, make small commits with readable messages, and merge the work back cleanly.
Programming basics (Module 0)
- I passed the programming rubric, including the independent transfer task.
- I can distinguish input text from integer data, trace a loop and explain print versus return.
- I can demonstrate that invalid input and corrupt history do not erase saved data.
- I can show a real debugging note and a regression test.
Algorithm intuition (Module 1)
- I can explain why binary search is faster than simple search and when it is valid to use.
- I can compare
O(1),O(log n),O(n), andO(n^2)at a practical intuition level. - I can trace a small recursive example and point to the base case and recursive case.
- I can draw a small graph and explain why BFS needs both a queue and a visited set.
CS fundamentals (Module 2)
- I can explain what computer science studies besides "writing code."
- I can distinguish an algorithm, an ADT, a data structure, and a database with one concrete example of each.
- I can explain the path from source code to compiler or interpreter to operating system to CPU and memory.
- I can name at least three strategy families and say when each is a plausible fit.
Clean code (Module 3)
- I can explain why clear naming reduces future debugging and review cost.
- I can describe what makes a function do one job instead of several.
- I can identify at least three code smells in a small example and suggest a safer rewrite.
- I can explain why tests belong near the beginning of engineering practice instead of being a late add-on.
Integration (semester project)
- I can run my project from its README in a clean folder or fresh terminal session.
- I can explain how the tracker, algorithm visualizer, and storage fit together.
- I can walk through one algorithm step by step using my project or a paper trace.
- I can point to one place where I kept logic out of the UI or presentation layer.
Skills Verification Matrix
Use this table during a mock check with a peer, mentor, or recorded self-video. The goal is to expose weak spots before Semester 1, not after.
| Skill | Evidence / Task | Pass? | Date | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Explain algorithm growth | Compare simple search and binary search with one concrete input-size example | [ ] | ||
| Trace graph search | Draw a small graph and explain BFS using queue and visited set | [ ] | ||
| Explain the computing stack | Walk one simple program from source code down to machine execution | [ ] | ||
| Review code quality | Identify naming, function, or duplication problems in a small snippet | [ ] | ||
| Show engineering basics | Run tests, show Git history, and explain the project layout | [ ] | ||
| Defend the semester project | Explain inputs, logic, storage, and output clearly | [ ] |
"Am I Ready?" Criteria
You are ready to treat Semester 0 as complete when all of these are true:
- At least 90 percent of the checklist above is honestly checked without hand-waving.
- The cumulative review was attempted closed-book first and every miss was logged for follow-up.
- The semester exam was completed under timed conditions and reviewed honestly.
- The semester project is runnable, documented, and defended in plain language.
If an item is "paper yes, real no," treat it as not passed. The whole point of Semester 0 is to stop fake confidence from leaking into Semester 1.
Remediation Guidance
| Gap | Suggested remediation |
|---|---|
| Big O still feels like vocabulary only | Revisit Module 1 concepts 1 and 2, then compare three growth rates using one real input-size scenario. |
| Recursion or BFS still feels magical | Hand-trace two small examples on paper before touching code again. |
| CS map is still fragmented | Redraw the Module 2 map from memory and write one sentence for each layer or area. |
| Code smells are easy to spot but hard to fix | Rework one small project file with a naming pass, a function split, and one test-protected refactor. |
| Tests feel artificial | Add tests to tracker summaries and algorithm step transitions until the value becomes obvious. |
| Git history is messy or scary | Rebuild the last small feature on a fresh branch with 3-5 clean commits and readable messages. |
Advancement Sign-Off
- I completed the cumulative review honestly.
- I completed the semester exam under real constraints.
- I can begin Semester 1 without depending on copied notes to explain Semester 0 foundations.
Mastery Rubric
| Level | Evidence |
|---|---|
| Beginner pass | Can answer direct questions and complete familiar exercises with light notes. |
| Solid pass | Can solve new variants, explain choices, and connect the work to Pre-Semester Launchpad. |
| Strong pass | Can defend tradeoffs, identify failure modes, and produce clean evidence in the portfolio artifact. |
| Not ready | Relies on copied solutions, cannot explain mistakes, or lacks durable artifacts. |
Retake and Repair Rule
If a section is weak, do not only reread. Repair it by producing new evidence: a corrected solution, a fresh implementation, a rewritten proof, a benchmark, a diagram, a runbook, or a short teaching note.
Answer-Quality Examples
Use these examples when grading written answers or spoken explanations.
| Quality | Example pattern |
|---|---|
| Weak | Names a concept but gives no example, constraint, or failure case. |
| Acceptable | Defines the concept and applies it to a familiar exercise. |
| Strong | Applies the concept to a new variant and explains why an alternative would fail. |
| Portfolio-ready | Connects the concept to Pre-Semester Launchpad, current project evidence, and a future capstone decision. |
Interleaving Prompt
For any missed answer, add one sentence starting with: This depends on an earlier skill because...
Calibration Materials
Use these learner-visible calibration materials before self-grading or requesting review:
Before moving into Semester 01
- All four Launchpad algebra tasks are independently demonstrated in the readiness record.
- All five mathematical-notation exit tasks are independently explained.
These checks supplement the programming, algorithms, CS overview and readability gates above. Repair a failed dependency before progressing to proof-heavy material.
Programming design and retention evidence
Include the original tracker and reading-page transfer, the design/diagnosis clinic, and both retention checks. All five module rubric dimensions require independent evidence at level 2; an aggregate score cannot hide a failed category. A not-yet-due retention check is pending, not failed, but programming readiness and the semester exit checkpoint remain provisional until it passes. Preserve the other checkpoint and world-class strand requirements.
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.
Learning-support check (Module 4 and entry evidence)
Inspect the shared support packet within this checkpoint's existing time. Verify L1–L3 with the learning cycle and actual delayed observation. Carry forward the Launchpad reading, communication, capacity, digital-recovery and no-code AI assessment records; repair a missing prerequisite rather than duplicating completed modules. Missing delayed evidence is pending, not passed. Peer review may use the explicitly labeled solo route; do not claim human review occurred.
Technical practice check (Modules 5–7)
Inspect the already-assessed technical toolkit evidence: validated file report/provenance, response fixtures plus real loopback exchange, and independently evaluated suggestions with assistance/authority decisions. Require DF1–DF4, WH1–WH4 and AI1–AI4 at 2/2. Authored fixtures do not establish live AI behavior; fixture-only HTTP checks do not establish a real exchange.