Submit innovation proposal

E1: connect goals, limits and the concept

NGSS HS-ETS1-3 calls for evaluating designs using evidence, ranked criteria and tradeoffs. Cost, safety and reliability are among the constraints to consider. These principles support a transparent design argument, not proof that an idea works.

In your proposal, connect each criterion to a feature and a way to check it. Then ask whether the proposed stage respects each constraint. If a needed resource is unknown, mark that part of feasibility unknown rather than inventing a cost or test result.

Give a high, medium or low feasibility rating using the original definitions above. Name the evidence behind it. This scale is a planning aid, not the missing official rubric.

E2: distinguish a plan from performance evidence

FDA describes human factors through the interaction of users and devices: perceiving information, interpreting it and acting. Labels and training materials are part of the interface.

The goal includes reducing use-related risk and checking safe and effective use. A clear sketch can support a design discussion, but does not show that intended users understand it or benefit.

Apply this boundary to the proposal: expected benefit is a prediction; validated benefit would need suitable evidence. A classroom model does not establish clinical safety, manufacturing quality or regulatory clearance.

S1: complete original recovery design brief

This continues the invented March 17 appointment-preparation idea without assuming that any earlier assignment was completed. Intended users are people who want to organize questions before a healthcare visit. The proposed aid gives no diagnosis or treatment advice.

Concept: a reusable large-print paper card with an optional audio version. A paper route would not require a phone; audio would require a compatible device. No user results, cost figures or clinical effects are supplied.

Three proposed criteria: the card separates questions from notes. Its purpose statement says it is for preparing questions, not medical advice. The core task can be completed without audio.

Three supplied classroom constraints: use only fictional questions; collect no personal health information; make no claim that the aid is ready for clinical use. For this original draft, the proposed stage is a paper layout, not a manufactured card or working audio tool.

A possible benefit is helping someone organize what they want to ask. A major risk is someone mistaking prompts for medical guidance. These are predictions to examine, not observed patient outcomes.

Tradeoff: adding audio may broaden ways to use the aid, but creates an additional device/access dependency. Paper avoids that dependency for the core task but may not meet every access need. Do not claim either format serves everyone.

D1: visible paper layout and feasibility input

Here is the supplied text layout, read from top to bottom. TITLE: Questions for my visit. PURPOSE: A place to prepare questions, not medical advice. LEFT AREA: Questions I want to ask. RIGHT AREA: Notes I choose to keep.

The example question is fictional: What does this term mean? The example note is fictional: Ask for an explanation. FOOTER: Audio version is a future option; this paper layout does not require it. No personal facts appear.

You can inspect this text to see that it has separate question/note areas and the stated purpose. That is evidence about the supplied representation only. It does not test large-print readability, reuse, audio function or user understanding.

For your own proposal, draw a labeled version of the chosen concept or provide an equally clear text layout. Link each of its features to the criteria. The original practice needs paper and a writing tool, or a local editable document.

A bounded feasibility judgment names the stage it covers, the tools you actually have and the requirements that remain unknown. Record actual tool access instead of claiming it was checked.

R1: original proposal checklist and gap record

This is an original completion checklist derived from today’s product. It is not the missing official proposal rubric, and it awards no points. Use present, revise or missing for each item and identify where it appears.

Check one: a problem statement names intended users and the need. Check two: at least three criteria and two constraints are stated and distinguishable. Check three: the chosen concept and labeled layout connect to those criteria.

Check four: feasibility names the proposed stage, available tools, unknown resources and a reasoned judgment. Check five: expected benefit and one major risk name who is affected without claiming outcomes.

Check six: at least two evidence IDs support the argument, with a limitation. Check seven: explain one tradeoff and record one revision or a reason for retaining the current version. Check eight: mark missing official rubric, prep records or submission access.

After checking, repair a missing or weak section. If the official rubric arrives, compare your work with that actual rubric and make any additional changes. Original checklist completion does not certify official rubric completion.

C1: warmups, support and independent route

Warmup one: name one defendable rule from E1 or E2. Warmup two: name a result that would make you revise its application to this concept.

Sort these statements into observation, teaching model or decision. A: D1 contains a labeled questions area. B: S1 imagines a reusable appointment card. C: develop only the paper layout next.

Self-check: for each statement, ask whether it reports what a document shows, describes an invented design, or chooses a next step. None reports what happened to actual patients.

If prior work is absent, explicitly adopt S1 as a tentative original idea. Assemble your own proposal using S1/D1 and all R1 checks. This permits complete original practice without pretending your actual criteria log or design sprint exists.

Remediation frame: E1 shows ____. E2 helps explain ____. Therefore I can claim ____, but I cannot claim ____. Use it to draft the reasoning, then include every proposal section.

No partner response or personal health history is required. Describe your own planned revision and its reason, not a fabricated peer comment or completed test.

P1: both preparation inputs and authentic holds

Two separate homework tasks are due before this class. Design criteria and constraints belongs in Class Records and is assigned 25 minutes. Design sprint and tradeoffs belongs in Lab Notebooks and is also assigned 25 minutes.

Obtain the actual assigned material and recover both records. Their combined assigned time is 50 minutes outside this 80-minute block. S1/D1 are original recovery inputs; they do not certify those two preparation tasks as completed.

Check your own records for your problem definition, constraints log and design sprint. March 17’s tentative idea can provide continuity; March 18’s actual problem-definition work remains a separate input when available.

The proposal rubric itself is not supplied. Use R1 for original checking and request the official rubric before completing its self-assessment. No new functioning prototype or clinical trial is assigned by the dated product. Any separately assigned actual sketch, sprint model or course-shell brief still needs its own record.

Today’s proposal goes to Lab Reports. Confirm the actual format, route and stopping point; do not invent an official activity.

The related course activity is Problem 3.1.3 Design Innovations. Its broader project includes a proposal, model/prototype/detailed schematic and marketing pitch. Your teacher will confirm the assigned portion; this proposal does not finish that project.

Confirm participation and any extra credit with the teacher. This original proposal grants no points.

Ask your teacher which other weekly work is still due.

This proposal does not complete any of it.

If access is missing, save the same proposal locally and list each unresolved input. Other weekly work remains separate.

X1: self-check, extension and final revision

Self-check case: a writer says one clear classroom layout proves the aid is safe for all users. Name the source and comparison, apply E1/E2 and state the method-specific limitation.

Decide what the layout itself can show and which missing comparison or clinical evidence blocks the stronger claim. The next step is a justified design revision or test plan, not clinical deployment.

Extension: propose one additional measurement, comparison control or stakeholder perspective. State what finding would change the design and what stronger claim would still remain unsupported. This does not authorize testing.

Exit reflection: with one more week, what would you change or investigate first, and why? Name the evidence ID that most limits your present proposal. Restart at the first unfinished R1 check rather than rewriting completed sections.

Prepare and sort

Answer both C1 warmups and sort all three statements. Identify which preparation records and rubric you actually have.

P1 names both 25-minute inputs. Record missing access honestly.

Assemble the proposal sections

Write the problem, at least three criteria, at least two constraints and chosen concept. Include a labeled sketch or clear text layout linking features to criteria.

Use actual prior work if available, or explicitly adopt S1/D1 for original recovery. M1 is a different complete model.

Check feasibility

Name the proposed stage, tools you actually have, constraints and unknown resources. Give a justified high, medium or low feasibility rating. Cite at least two evidence IDs and one limitation.

Separate drafting a layout from building and validating a product. D1 supplies only a text representation.

Expected benefit, risk and tradeoff

State the expected benefit and one major risk in plain language for an affected stakeholder. Explain one tradeoff.

Predictions do not become outcomes because the proposal looks polished.

Self-assess and revise

Mark every R1 item present, revise or missing and give its location. Improve one section or explain retaining it. Use the actual official rubric when supplied.

R1 gives original completion checks only. If the official rubric is unavailable, request it before assessing your work against it.

Submit and reflect

Submit the same assembled innovation design proposal. Answer X1’s check and one-more-week exit; add the optional extension if ready. Record unresolved preparation, rubric or course requirements.

Use the confirmed Lab Reports route. Save locally if unavailable; do not mark official activity or credit complete.