Prototype revision log
Safety gate · before any work
- Wear the required PPE, keep the bench clear, handle equipment only as directed, and know where the eyewash, sink, and spill kit are before you start.
- Human samples and data stay private: label with a code, never a name, and dispose of materials in the correct waste container, then wash your hands.
Do now
Record a revision log documenting how feedback changed your ER prototype.
- Hand in
- Prototype revision log: accepted changes tied to criteria or evidence, and at least one rejected alternative with reasoning.
- Where
- Turn this in at the drop folder with your district Microsoft sign-in, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class. Both count as submitted. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not.
You get two school days for every day you were absent, so this deadline moves with you.
When a reviewer says your ER corridor is too narrow, can you show exactly what you changed, which criterion or code drove the change, and one alternative you considered and rejected, with the reason?
Record a revision log documenting how feedback changed your ER prototype.
- • Your log links each revision to evidence or a criterion.
- • You can justify a design change and a rejected alternative.
- A revision log entry should link a change to a reason. Rewrite this weak entry so it points to a criterion: 'We moved the desk.'
- Why might writing down an idea you tried and then rejected make your design work look stronger, not weaker or more indecisive?
- 1Collect feedback on your and flowchart.
- 2List each change you made and the reason for it.
- 3Tie each change to a criterion or constraint.
- 4Note one change you considered but rejected, with reasoning.
- 5Submit the prototype revision log.
What did this day actually feel like?
Prototype revision log
Documenting every change and why. The log is the deliverable, not just the final plan, because the reasoning is what gets assessed.
Turned in: lab report → Lab Reports folder
Fiction. There is no such student. The lessons, labs and dates are the real planned course; the student, the classmates and the conversations are invented.
The same day, drawn.
Documenting every change and why. The log is the deliverable, not just the final plan, because the reasoning is what gets assessed.
Fiction. There is no such student. The lessons, labs and dates are the real planned course; the student, the classmates and the conversations are invented.
🛠 Get unstuck · pick your level
Lab day: Tier 1 is the whole class at the bench. No extension today.
🔑 Today's words · 5
Tap a word in the lesson for a plain meaning and one example. Recycled into next week's Do-Now.
Argument: disagreeing well, and when opinion becomes fact
How do we argue productively when we disagree, and when does a claim become accepted as fact?
An argument is not a fight. It is two or more people testing claims against evidence to get closer to the truth. The best disagreements aim at the strongest version of the other side (steelman it), refute the actual reasoning, and stay about the idea, not the person.
A sound argument and a clash of opinions are different things. Opinions can simply differ and both stand. A scientific argument is settled by evidence: the side with stronger, more reliable evidence and better reasoning should win, and everyone should be willing to update.
So when does an opinion become a fact? In science, a claim becomes accepted not because enough people like it, but when independent evidence keeps supporting it and repeated attempts to disprove it fail. That is consensus, and it is provisional: it holds until better evidence changes it. Truth is not a vote, but agreement among many careful, independent investigations is the best signal we have.
- • Steelmans: it takes on the strongest version of the other side.
- • Targets reasoning and evidence, never the person.
- • Is settled by evidence, not by who is louder or more popular.
- • Stays open: the participants will change their minds if the evidence does.
- • A claim earns the label “fact” through repeated, independent evidence, not a popularity vote.
- • Even strong consensus stays open to revision if better evidence appears.
Take a claim from this course that people might dispute. Write the strongest argument for it and the strongest against it, then say which the evidence supports and what would change your mind.
Do the work · 80-minute blockfirst 5 min = hook▸
💡 Big idea: A revision log is the primary evidence that feedback improved a prototype, because tying each documented change (and each rejected alternative) to a specific criterion proves the improvement was driven by evidence rather than guesswork.
- 0-10Collect feedback: review peer comments on your and flowchart from this week
- 10-30Log accepted changes: for each revision, record what changed and why (tie to criterion or evidence)
- 30-50Log rejected alternatives: note one change you considered but decided against, with reasoning
- 50-65Verify that every logged change traces to a criterion or constraint from your
- 65-77Submit the prototype revision log
- 77-80Exit reflection: which revision do you think improved the design most, and what is your evidence?
- • This week you built a and a flowchart. Now you need to document how feedback changed them.
- • A revision log is not a list of mistakes -- it is proof that your design process is iterative and evidence-driven.
- • Every change you record today becomes part of your portfolio evidence for Problem 1.
- • Including a rejected alternative -- and explaining why you said no -- is a mark of a sophisticated designer.
- • How to write a revision log entry that links a design change to a specific criterion or piece of evidence.
- • Why documenting rejected alternatives shows rigorous design thinking rather than indecision.
- • How a revision log becomes the primary evidence that feedback improved the prototype.
Design brief, floor plan logic, staffing, process flow, safety, and human factors. · Prototype revision log
Day 5 of this lesson. Open this exact section in myPLTW (find it in Clever, Microsoft sign-in), then do the work below.
Do this: Open Problem 1 in your myPLTW course shell and locate the revision or iteration activity to review the log format.
Mark the revision-log activity complete in your tracker after submitting the log.
The , flowchart, and all Problem 1 prototype work are done; today you log the changes feedback drove and submit the weekly summative.
Revision log with accepted changes linked to criteria or evidence, and at least one rejected alternative with reasoning.
The official PLTW activity stays inside myPLTW. If myPLTW will not open, use F1 and E1-E3 on this page to complete today's local evidence decision, then make up the official activity when access returns. Turn this in at the drop folder with your district Microsoft sign-in, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class. Both count as submitted. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not.
Check things off as you work, then submit. This tells Mr. Mendoza how you're doing so he can help the class. It does not replace turning in your producible through the submission route shown below.
Use the code Mr. Mendoza gave you, not your name. Saved on this device.
Design brief, floor plan logic, staffing, process flow, safety, and human factors. · Prototype revision log
Open Problem 1 in your myPLTW course shell and locate the revision or iteration activity to review the log format.
The , flowchart, and all Problem 1 prototype work are done; today you log the changes feedback drove and submit the weekly summative.
This is how Mr. Mendoza sees the class keeping pace with PLTW. Be honest, it only helps if it is accurate.
🎯 Record a revision log documenting how feedback changed your ER prototype.
- Collect feedback on your and flowchart.
- List each change you made and the reason for it.
- Tie each change to a criterion or constraint.
- Note one change you considered but rejected, with reasoning.
- Submit the prototype revision log.
Lab report: Prototype revision log: accepted changes tied to criteria or evidence, and at least one rejected alternative with reasoning.
Turn this in at the drop folder with your district Microsoft sign-in, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class. Both count as submitted. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not. Use the checklist just below and upload by 11:29 PM for full credit. Absent with an excused absence? You get two school days for every day you were absent, so this deadline moves with you.
| Task | Who |
|---|---|
| Collect feedback on your and flowchart. | _______ |
| List each change you made and the reason for it. | _______ |
| Tie each change to a criterion or constraint. | _______ |
| Note one change you considered but rejected, with reasoning. | _______ |
| Submit the prototype revision log. | _______ |
Working solo? Put your own name in "Who" for every row.
- Your log links each revision to evidence or a criterion.
- You can justify a design change and a rejected alternative.
- 1Do thisRecord a revision log documenting how feedback changed your ER prototype.
- 2Use this resource
- 3Submit thisLab report: Prototype revision log: accepted changes tied to criteria or evidence, and at least one rejected alternative with reasoning.
- 4Submit it here
- 1Open the drop folder.
- 2Sign in with your district Microsoft account, not a personal one.
- 3Upload the file, named Lastname_Firstname__Assignment Title.
- 4Your own upload panel says Uploaded with a green check: that is your receipt.
Turn this in at the drop folder with your district Microsoft sign-in, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class. Both count as submitted. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not. Biotechnology for Health (Biomedical Innovations) › Design brief, floor plan logic, staffing, process flow, safety, and human factors. › Lab reportOpen the drop folder
Learn it · deck, reading, and vocabulary▸
The deck carries the prior idea forward, lets you inspect an analogy, maps the rule to biology, and ends with the same evidence decision and exit ticket used on this page.
Generated from this lesson's canonical data with a red-team citation check.
A flowchart verifies a design, because tracing the decisions a person actually makes while moving reveals confusion points that a static cannot show, so you can fix them before a patient guesses wrong.
A revision log is the primary evidence that feedback improved a prototype, because tying each documented change (and each rejected alternative) to a specific criterion proves the improvement was driven by evidence rather than guesswork.
A thermostat compares a room reading with a set point and changes the heater.
- What is measured?
- What is the target?
- What response reduces the difference?
detects a change and produces a response that reduces that change.
Body systems use many interacting signals and delays, not one simple thermostat wire.
- • Room reading maps to the measured variable.
- • Set point maps to the regulated range.
- • Heater response maps to an response.
Driving question: When a reviewer says your ER corridor is too narrow, can you show exactly what you changed, which criterion or code drove the change, and one alternative you considered and rejected, with the reason?
What you already know: A flowchart verifies a design, because tracing the decisions a person actually makes while moving reveals confusion points that a static cannot show, so you can fix them before a patient guesses wrong.
New idea: A revision log is the primary evidence that feedback improved a prototype, because tying each documented change (and each rejected alternative) to a specific criterion proves the improvement was driven by evidence rather than guesswork.
Visual or model: F1. F1. A lesson illustration or teaching diagram for Prototype revision log. Use it with E1-E3; it is a model or context image, not experimental or patient data. What to notice: Trace the labeled system, test, or design relationship and identify which evidence should trigger revision.
- Observe or measure the relevant feature in Prototype revision log.
- Organize the observation with a stable evidence ID.
- Apply this rule: detects a change and produces a response that reduces that change.
- Choose the option the evidence supports and state the limit of the conclusion.
Real biomedical example: When a reviewer says your ER corridor is too narrow, can you show exactly what you changed, which criterion or code drove the change, and one alternative you considered and rejected, with the reason?
What the evidence supports: E1-E3 and F1 support the daily take-home when the response meets the stated success criteria.
What it cannot prove: The package does not support claims beyond this lesson's or any real patient diagnosis.
- • : A short written plan that states the problem, the user's needs, the requirements, and the limits a design must meet before building begins.
- • : A scaled drawing of a room or building seen from above, showing the layout of walls, equipment, and workspaces.
- • : A step-by-step map of how a task or system moves from start to finish, showing the order of actions and decisions.
- • staffing: The process of determining how many workers with which skills are needed and assigning them to cover the work of an organization.
- • : The study of how people interact with tools, devices, and systems, used to design healthcare equipment and workflows that reduce human error.
Use it now: Choose one decision option. Cite E1 and E3, then explain how the rule connects the evidence to your choice.
Go further, optional: The source links below are optional enrichment. Every fact required for today's local evidence decision appears in this lesson package.
How to write a revision log entry that links a design change to a specific criterion or piece of evidence.
Limit: E1 supplies context or an observation; it does not by itself establish the explanation.
A revision log is the primary evidence that feedback improved a prototype, because tying each documented change (and each rejected alternative) to a specific criterion proves the improvement was driven by evidence rather than guesswork.
Limit: E2 is a teaching statement or comparison and must be checked against the task evidence.
Your log links each revision to evidence or a criterion.
Limit: E3 supports only the result or product criterion named here; it cannot justify a broader clinical or causal claim.
PLTW-BFH-2027-02-22 · Simulated classroom evidence scenario
Your role: biomedical design team member
Decision: Your team must decide what the evidence from Prototype revision log supports before submitting the lab report named on the lesson page.
- • Keep the current design.
- • Revise the feature that misses a criterion.
- • Run one more fair test before choosing.
Response: State one choice, cite at least two evidence IDs, explain the rule that connects them, and add one limitation. Submit it as the lab report.
Claim ceiling: The supplied lesson evidence can support an observation, pattern, classroom mechanism, or next-step decision about Prototype revision log. It cannot by itself prove causation, establish a real clinical diagnosis, or justify action outside this classroom task.
Reason for review: Your team must decide what the evidence from Prototype revision log supports before submitting the lab report named on the lesson page.
Context: A revision log is the evidence that feedback improved a design, because it links each change to a specific criterion, and documenting the alternatives you rejected shows disciplined reasoning rather than random tinkering.
- • T1: Collect feedback on your and flowchart.
- • T2: List each change you made and the reason for it.
- • T3: Tie each change to a criterion or constraint.
- • T4: Note one change you considered but rejected, with reasoning.
- • T5: Submit the prototype revision log.
- • E1: How to write a revision log entry that links a design change to a specific criterion or piece of evidence.
- • E2: A revision log is the primary evidence that feedback improved a prototype, because tying each documented change (and each rejected alternative) to a specific criterion proves the improvement was driven by evidence rather than guesswork.
- • E3: Your log links each revision to evidence or a criterion.
Measurements: No patient measurement is supplied unless it appears explicitly in E1-E3 or F1. Do not invent a value.
Figure finding: Teaching diagram for Prototype revision log. Trace the labeled system, test, or design relationship and identify which evidence should trigger revision. This is a teaching model, not patient or experimental data.
Uncertainty: This is a composite classroom scenario. Missing history, measurements, or confirmation tests remain unknown and limit the conclusion.
- • The solution must address the stated need in Prototype revision log.
- • The decision must be supported by E1-E3.
- • The final product must make the success criteria visible.
- • Complete the work inside the 80-minute block.
- • Use only supplied or teacher-approved materials and evidence.
- • Do not trade , accessibility, or privacy for speed.
- • and evidence quality: must pass before scoring other criteria.
- • User need and effectiveness: highest scored criterion.
- • Time, cost, and ease of use: compare only after and effectiveness pass.
Test evidence: For each option, record the E1-E3 result that supports or fails each criterion. Do not assign a score without a named observation.
- Version or option tested
- Criterion met or missed
- Evidence ID and result
- Revision made
- Reason for the revision
- Need and user
- Criteria and constraints
- Chosen option and evidence
- Test result
- Revision and reason
Students often think Students think revising a prototype means the first version failed, so a long revision log is embarrassing evidence of getting it wrong.. The trap: The trap treats revision as failure. In engineering, revision is the mechanism by which evidence improves a design, so a rich log signals rigor, not incompetence. Hiding your changes to look like you nailed it the first time actually hides your reasoning, and a design with no documented revision looks untested, not perfect.
ER prototype revision log
Feedback collected: peers said the single corridor could cause cross-traffic between incoming and discharged patients.
Accepted changes:
1. Change: split the corridor into a one-way loop. Reason: a peer review showed cross-traffic. Tied to criterion: keep the patient-flow path one-directional.
2. Change: moved the supply cart next to the nurse station. Reason: turnover technician walked too far, slowing turnover. Tied to criterion: turnover at or under 15 minutes.
Rejected alternative:
- Considered: adding a seventh treatment bay. Rejected because it breaks the no-expansion space constraint and would not fit the existing footprint. Documenting this shows the choice was deliberate, not overlooked.
What the log proves: each change traces to evidence or a criterion, so the revisions are improvements, not guesses.
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: A log recording each change made to the prototype after feedback, tied to a criterion or evidence, plus one rejected alternative with reasoning.
- State the question and method.
- Present the observations and data with units.
- Explain the result, limitations, and next investigation.
Keep the structure. Replace the question, facts, measurements, and evidence. Then recheck units, vocabulary, and whether the conclusion goes beyond the evidence.
Also due today: Submit the prototype revision log on the class site, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class.
- CER:
- Claim, Evidence, Reasoning: make a claim, back it with evidence, explain your reasoning.
- SOP:
- Standard Operating Procedure, the exact steps to follow (especially in a lab).
- Tracker:
- Your PLTW progress log where you record completed evidence.
- myPLTW:
- The PLTW course site where you do the online activities. Find it in Clever with your Microsoft sign-in, right next to Schoology.
Tap the speaker to hear a term. Add two of these to your notebook glossary with a definition and an example in your own words.
Pick just 2 or 3 words from today and make them yours: write what each one means in your own words, name the context clue or evidence that helped, then give one example from what you actually did in Prototype revision log. Try your own words first; the glossary is there if you get stuck. This is voluntary and counts as extra credit, so keep it short.
Saved on this device. Show Mr. Mendoza or add these to your notebook glossary to claim the extra credit.
Classroom documents for this lesson are posted in Schoology. Open Clever, then Schoology, and find each one by the name shown on its card.
Open this when the class reaches this activity and use it to complete the required lesson artifact.
Placement rationale
Matched Prototype planning and project management by path:Biomedical-Innovations/Problem-1_Emergency-Room/1.1_Emergency-Room; keywords:gantt, project management. Score 142. Visibility: student-schoology (student-facing resource; link through Schoology rather than local path).
Use this if you were absent, got stuck, or need another pass before you submit the lesson artifact.
Placement rationale
Matched Prototype planning and project management by path:Biomedical-Innovations/Problem-1_Emergency-Room/00_Problem-Overview; keywords:gantt, design. Score 134. Visibility: student-schoology (student-facing resource; link through Schoology rather than local path).
Open this when the class reaches this activity and use it to complete the required lesson artifact.
Placement rationale
Matched Prototype planning and project management by path:Biomedical-Innovations/Problem-1_Emergency-Room/1.1_Emergency-Room; keywords:design. Score 134. Visibility: student-schoology (student-facing resource; link through Schoology rather than local path).
How to get there: open Clever and sign in with your Microsoft (district) account. Both myPLTW and Schoology are in Clever. Do the activity in myPLTW. Turn the work in on this site or hand it to Mr. Mendoza, because that is the step that counts as submitted. Schoology only shows your report-card grade later.
Check yourself · commit, then reveal▸
Claim ceiling for this check: The supplied lesson evidence can support an observation, pattern, classroom mechanism, or next-step decision about Prototype revision log. It cannot by itself prove causation, establish a real clinical diagnosis, or justify action outside this classroom task.
A team writes: 'We improved the layout based on feedback.' As a reviewer, why can you not accept this as evidence, and what two things must a real log entry contain?
Write an answer and pick a confidence to unlock the key.
Fast retrieval with instant answers, not the commit-then-reveal check above. Try each from memory first: write what you remember about the earlier units, then check yourself here.
Go further and get help▸
I can name the procedure's purpose and the evidence I will record. I can identify each named hazard and the control that reduces it: Wear the required PPE, keep the bench clear, handle equipment only as directed, and know where the eyewash, sink, and spill kit are before you start. My data table is ready before materials are handled.
Finish the checklist before you handle any material.
- • Wear the required PPE, keep the bench clear, handle equipment only as directed, and know where the eyewash, sink, and spill kit are before you start.
- • Human samples and data stay private: label with a code, never a name, and dispose of materials in the correct waste container, then wash your hands.
- 1Before materials are handled, identify the purpose, variables or comparison, controls, measurement units, and stop-work condition.
- 2Collect feedback on your floor plan and flowchart.
- 3List each change you made and the reason for it.
- 4Tie each change to a criterion or constraint.
- 5Note one change you considered but rejected, with reasoning.
- 6Submit the prototype revision log.
- 7Record each result in the prepared table before interpreting it. Mark missing, repeated, or invalid results truthfully.
- 8Complete the named cleanup and waste route, remove PPE safely, wash hands when required, and confirm the station is ready for the next group.
| Trial or sample ID | Independent condition | Measured result with units | Observation before interpretation | Quality-control note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Before the procedure, predict the result and cite the rule behind the prediction.
After the procedure, compare the result with the prediction and name one limitation or source of uncertainty.
What today's skills lead to. These are real health-science careers this course builds toward. Tap one to see, on the US Department of Labor's O*NET site, what the job actually involves, what it pays, and how fast it is growing.
Today is individual work you can do from home: complete the same target above, then submit your Lab report.
Open the drop folderTurn this in at the drop folder with your district Microsoft sign-in, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class. Both count as submitted. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not.
Class still runs. Complete the online activity above (it's self-guided). Need the concept taught without a teacher? Use this authoritative explainer:
NGSS Engineering Design- CompleteEvery required part of the artifact is present, nothing left blank.
- AccurateThe science and the data are correct and match the evidence.
- Scientific reasoningYou explain your claim with evidence and reasoning (CER), not just an answer.
- Professional communicationClear, organized, labeled, and written the way a clinician or scientist would.
- SubmittedTurned in the right way, on the class site or handed to Mr. Mendoza in class, and confirmed. Not in Schoology: that is where the report-card grade appears later.
- Error analysis and method · counts doubleName a specific limit of the method and how it moved your result, and compare what you predicted to what happened. "Human error" does not count; say what about the procedure or instrument caused it.