Prototype revision log

H1: Select one route and start with a small record

The teacher selects the route. With your genuine floor plan, chart, brief and feedback or documented self-review, make the actual revision log. Do not also complete S1 practice.

If those inputs are missing, use the complete fictional paper records below. They do not represent your ER prototype or real feedback.

Opening example only: a fictional label must show a date. Version A says “Draft”; version B says “Draft, February 22.” The paper change adds the required date. Nobody tested whether a reader noticed it.

Answer both opening questions: what changed and which requirement supports the change? What would still be unknown about its use? H1 supplies all opening inputs; later cards can wait.

A reason makes a change traceable. It does not by itself prove that a real system works better.

R1: Build a traceable log

For each accepted change, record the before version, after version, exact change, feedback or self-review identifier, criterion or constraint, and whether the change has actually been made. Add what the comparison can and cannot show.

A feedback comment can identify a possible problem. Check the design record before accepting the comment as a finding. A claimed benefit needs evidence suited to that benefit.

For a rejected alternative, describe the option, name the criterion or constraint it conflicts with, and explain the choice. Do not claim that rejecting one option proves another is safe.

Carry the February 19 method forward: every chart arrow needs a clear next step and a route shown on the plan. Preserve the real plan and chart; do not replace them with a teaching model.

S1: Complete fictional paper versions and brief

Original route only. This is a simulated ER visitor-information paper model. It contains no patient, clinical decision, measured outcome or actual building. All rooms and comments below are fictional. Actual route: use your genuine versions and brief instead; skip all S1-specific responses.

B1 brief: help a reader match a destination name and a drawn route. C1 criterion: the sign, chart destination and destination door use the exact name “Waiting Room.” C2 criterion: every chart connection follows the shown plan. C3 constraint: keep the existing rooms, doors and corridor; add no opening or space. These are exercise rules, not building codes.

P1 plan, complete text equivalent: an entrance opens into a lobby. A corridor connects the lobby to the Waiting Room door. The lobby and Waiting Room share a wall with no door through it. There is no direct lobby-to-room connection; the corridor is the only shown route. The Waiting Room door says “Waiting Room.” The lobby sign says “Guest Area.” No other spaces or connections exist in this model. The plan is not to scale.

T1 chart, complete text equivalent: START is “Enter lobby.” An arrow goes directly to END, “Arrive at Waiting Room.” It omits the corridor step and describes a direct lobby-to-room connection through the wall. These are the only two nodes and the only arrow.

P2 revised paper plan: every P1 room, door and connection is unchanged. The lobby sign now says “Waiting Room”; the destination door still says “Waiting Room.” Nothing else changed.

T2 revised paper chart, complete text equivalent: START “Enter lobby” connects to ACTION “Follow corridor to Waiting Room door”; ACTION connects to END “Arrive at Waiting Room.” Those are all three nodes and both arrows. No clinical route or new physical connection is added.

P2 and T2 are supplied completed fictional paper versions. Their changes are implemented in these paper records only. No actual prototype was changed and no user performance was measured.

S2: Simulated feedback and rejected option

Original route only. R-A simulated review comment: “The lobby sign says Guest Area, but the door and destination say Waiting Room. Compare all names with C1.” The mismatch is visible in P1/T1.

R-B simulated review comment: “T1 describes a direct route through the wall. P1 only shows a corridor route. Compare each connection with C2.” Check both P1 and T1 rather than treating the comment alone as proof.

R-C simulated suggestion: “Add a new door through the shared wall and keep the direct chart.” This is the rejected alternative. Check it against C1, C2 and C3 to name the rule it conflicts with.

Log the two accepted P1-to-P2 and T1-to-T2 changes and the R-C rejection. Use their actual supplied content. No time savings, reduced confusion, safety clearance or clinical improvement was measured.

Actual route: use genuine feedback or label a real self-review honestly. Log actual accepted changes and at least one considered/rejected option as required by the teacher; the practice count is not an authentic quota. Do not invent missing comments or defects.

Q1: Check the same log and recover independently

Original route: check that each entry shows the paper version change, the review comment that prompted it and the criterion it answers. Compare each entry with P1/P2 and T1/T2.

Check whether both changes exist in the supplied fictional paper versions, whether P2/T2 keep C3, and which rule the R-C alternative conflicts with. No conclusion about real performance follows.

Trace START to ACTION to END in T2 against P2. Name the shown connection for each arrow. Check C1, C2 and C3 separately and cite the version used. Record whether each paper criterion is met; keep real-world performance untested.

If stuck, compare just the sign words in P1 and P2. Complete that one entry, then return to the chart change and rejected option. Do not present one entry as the complete practice log.

Actual route: check your log against genuine versions and assigned criteria. If a change is only proposed, label it proposed. If feedback or a plan is missing, name the affected check and request that input. Do not force two defects into a correct actual design.

Both routes: revise an unsupported claim or justify one supported claim in the same log. No second log or new experiment is required.

P3: Real inputs, submission and reflection

Keep eleven checks separate: floor-plan version, flowchart version, design brief/criteria, feedback or self-review, change implementation, performance evidence, rubric/format, enrolled instructions, official completion, assignment access, and whether Schoology shows Submitted. For each, give brief non-private evidence of what you did or a next action you need.

Begin these notes during work and update only changed items at closing. Use your existing work-check record if available; do not duplicate it. Checks of fictional P2/T2 do not show that the corresponding genuine work was done.

Keep real work in the teacher-approved location. Do not copy patient information, names, account details or clinical records into this preparation.

Use the linked February 22 BI assignment and check its posted directions, deadline and format. If access fails, save locally and ask the teacher for help.

The related official activity is Problem 1, Activity 1.1.2 Research and Documentation. Confirm the actual instructions and stopping point. After uploading, check that Schoology shows Submitted; submitting practice does not complete the separate official task.

Both routes finish on the same product: identify one documented change, the criterion it addresses, and an untested limit. No separate exit submission is required.

PRES: Build the presentation during this class

PRES is an original classroom presentation template and readiness rubric. It does not replace an official PLTW rubric or add a second Schoology submission. A storyboard is a sequence of panels planning what an audience will see and hear. Four paper panels are acceptable draft slides; presentation software is optional.

Actual route: open your February 18 floor plan, February 19 flowchart, research record and today’s revision log. Build the four-panel draft during this class. Use genuine work only. If an input is missing, put its name and your next action in that panel instead of inventing a source, route, result or completed task. Keep the draft available for the February 25 presentation.

Panel 1, Problem and evidence: name the ER design problem and the affected people. Add one relevant finding from a source you actually used, its citation, and a sentence explaining what it supports. Blank template: Problem __. Source and finding __. What this supports __. Limit __.

Panel 2, Design and routes: insert or redraw your labeled floor plan and refer to the matching flowchart. Show both assigned practice-patient paths and one proposed innovation from the actual teacher brief. Make labels and arrows readable. Blank template: Plan/version __. Path A __. Path B __. Innovation and intended reason __. Keep unmeasured wait-time or safety benefits as predictions.

Panel 3, Revision and alternative: show one genuine before/after change from your log and the criterion or feedback supporting it. State whether you implemented it. Explain one considered alternative and why you rejected it. Blank template: Before __. After __. Criterion/evidence __. Status __. Rejected alternative and reason __.

Panel 4, Evidence limits and question: name one conclusion your work supports and one outcome it has not tested. Add an unanswered question and a specific next step. Blank template: Supported claim __. Untested outcome __. Question __. Next step __. Add brief speaker notes to each panel and rehearse once using your own words.

Original route: make four explicitly labeled fictional-practice panels from S1/S2 and your log instead. Panel 1 states B1; panel 2 shows the supplied P2/T2 text model; panel 3 uses the paper versions and rejected R-C; panel 4 states an untested outcome and question. Do not invent a scaled hospital plan, two patient profiles or real research for this fallback. These practice panels do not complete the authentic ER presentation.

Readiness rubric, four rows: (1) Problem and traceable evidence; (2) Readable design and paths appropriate to the selected route; (3) Revision, criterion and rejected alternative; (4) Honest limits, question and clear spoken explanation. For each row mark Ready, Revise or Missing. Ready means every requested element is present, readable and consistent with the cited record; Revise means an element is present but unclear, unsupported or inconsistent; Missing means an element or its required input is absent. Record one specific repair for every Revise or Missing row. This unweighted classroom check is not a grade or a claim of official rubric compliance.

Attach the four-panel draft and its four rubric marks to the same revision log. Submit once to the existing Prototype revision log assignment. Preserve a working copy for rehearsal and February 25; later delivery and actual peer feedback still require their own evidence.

Both routes: change, criterion and unknown

Answer H1’s two opening questions in short phrases.

Use only H1 for the opening; no prior prototype or later record is needed.

Original route only: two accepted paper changes

Write both accepted entries using before/after versions, exact change, feedback ID, criterion, whether the change was made, and evidence limit.

Use R1, S1 and S2. Actual route: document genuine accepted revisions with teacher requirements instead; no duplicate fictional log.

Original route only: one rejected alternative

Describe R-C and explain why it conflicts with the brief. Name the constraint and say whether the change was made.

Actual route: record a genuinely considered alternative and grounded reason instead; do not invent a rejected choice.

Original route only: verify three paper requirements

Check C1, C2 and C3 separately against P2/T2. Trace both T2 arrows against the shown plan.

Use Q1. Actual route: check genuine versions against actual criteria instead; skip all fictional checks.

Both routes: revise the same log

Correct one unsupported claim or explain why one checked claim is supported.

Original route uses Q1; actual route uses genuine records and criteria. Proposed work stays proposed.

Both routes: four-panel presentation draft

Build four draft slides or paper storyboard panels using PRES. Add speaker notes, rehearse once, and mark each of the four readiness rows Ready, Revise or Missing. Make one documented repair or identify the missing input and next action.

Attach this draft and its readiness check to the same log. Use genuine ER artifacts for the actual route or explicitly labeled S1/S2 practice for the original route. Do not complete both routes.

Both routes: genuine inputs and completion

For P3's eleven checks, give non-private evidence of what you did or a next action you need.

Use the same log or existing work-check record. A simulated result does not show that genuine work was done.

Both routes: documented change and limit

Name one change, the criterion it addresses, and a limit on what the evidence shows.

Keep this reflection on the same product. Original route uses supplied paper evidence; actual route uses genuine evidence. No extra exit submission.