Appendix D — Self-Assessment Rubrics

Score your own draft before anyone else does. Each rubric rates a document type on a few load-bearing criteria across three levels. Instructors can use them as grading scaffolds; writers can use them as pre-flight checks.

A rubric is not a grade — it's a diagnostic. Read your draft against the criteria, find the row where you're weakest, and fix that first. The levels are deliberately concrete so "Excellent" means something you can verify, not a feeling.

The four universal criteria (every document, every field) live across all rubrics below, restated in each one's terms:

Criterion The question it asks
Audience fit Is this shaped for this reader's knowledge and decision? (Chapter 2)
Structure Can a scanner find the point fast? Is the most important thing first? (Chapter 4)
Clarity & correctness Clear, concise, jargon-checked, error-free? (Chapters 3, 6, Appendix A)
Purpose / "so what?" Does it accomplish its job — inform, persuade, instruct, decide?

Levels: 1 = Needs work · 2 = Adequate · 3 = Excellent. A document that scores all 3s ships; any 1 is a stop-and-fix.

Rubric 1 — Technical / lab report (IMRaD) — Chapter 13

Criterion 1 — Needs work 2 — Adequate 3 — Excellent
Structure (IMRaD) Sections blurred; purpose buried Four sections present and ordered Hourglass shape; each section answers its one question
Results vs. Discussion Interpretation smuggled into Results Mostly separate; some editorializing Results purely observational; a rival would accept every sentence
Replicability (Methods) "High temperature," no parameters Most parameters given A competent peer could reproduce it from the text alone
Claims calibrated "Proves"; overclaims Some hedging Suggests / is consistent with; limitations stated honestly
Abstract "Results are presented and discussed" Summarizes sections Delivers the actual numbers and the finding

Rubric 2 — Research paper & literature review — Chapters 14, 15

Criterion 1 2 3
Argument A summary of what you did A claim, weakly defended A clear thesis the whole paper argues for
The gap No stated gap; literature dump Gap implied The gap is named and motivates the work
Synthesis (lit review) Source-by-source list ("X said… Y said…") Grouped by theme Sources in conversation; your organizing argument leads
Citation Inconsistent; unverifiable claims Consistent style, mostly Uniform style; every claim traceable (Chapter 11)

Rubric 3 — Proposal / business case — Chapter 20

Criterion 1 2 3
Executive summary Missing or an abstract that describes Present; recommendation somewhere in it Stands alone; reader can decide from it alone
Problem → solution Solution with no felt problem Problem stated, loosely linked Problem quantified; solution clearly answers it
ROI / stakes "Significant value" A number, weakly supported Quantified cost, benefit, and the catch
The ask "Let me know your thoughts" Ask present One clear, dated request

Rubric 4 — Professional email — Chapter 19

Criterion 1 2 3
Subject line Vague ("Quick question") or blank Topic named Topic + what you need ("Approval needed by Fri: Q3 budget")
BLUF Point buried in paragraph 3 Point by the end of para 1 Ask/answer in the first sentence
Tone for the scenario Wrong register (curt bad-news, or buried "no") Appropriate Bad news softened but clear; "no" is kind and unambiguous
Action Reader unsure what to do Action stated Action, owner, and deadline explicit

Rubric 5 — Workplace report (status / incident) — Chapter 21

Criterion 1 2 3
Headline (BLUF) Reader must hunt for status Status stated First line gives the one fact that matters
Exception reporting Equal words on routine and exceptions Mostly exception-focused Routine compressed to a line; words spent where action is needed
RAG honesty "Watermelon" (green till it explodes) RAG used Thresholds pre-defined; amber/red flagged early
Owners + dates Actions with no owner ("we should…") Most actions assigned Every action has one named owner and a real date
Blameless (incident) Blames a person Mostly neutral "The system allowed…"; facts separate from root cause

Rubric 6 — Instructions / procedures — Chapter 22

Criterion 1 2 3
Steps Prose paragraphs; steps merged Numbered steps One action per numbered step, imperative verbs
Warnings placement Caution after the dangerous step Warnings present Warning appears before the step it guards
The beginner test Assumes hidden knowledge Mostly followable Someone who's never done it succeeds without asking
Verification No way to know it worked Some confirmation Each stage tells the reader how to confirm success

Rubric 7 — README / developer docs — Chapter 25

Criterion 1 2 3
Front-door order Philosophy wall up top Quick-start present Quick-start leads; what/why/install answered in order
Time-to-first-success No runnable example Example present Copy-pasteable install + example that runs on a clean machine
API completeness Happy path only Fields documented Request, response, and error codes with examples
The why (ADR) Decisions undocumented Some rationale Key decisions recorded: context, decision, consequences

Rubric 8 — Data memo — Chapter 27

Criterion 1 2 3
Order Methodology-first Findings-first Recommendation-first; reader can act from the top
"So what?" Numbers with no implication Implication stated Every finding tied to a decision
Captions "Figure 1: Churn." Describes the figure Caption interprets — states the takeaway (Chapter 9)
Honesty Uncertainty hidden Limits mentioned Confidence calibrated; caveats that affect the decision kept

Rubric 9 — Slides & presentation — Chapters 30, 31

Criterion 1 2 3
Slide load Walls of bullets read aloud One topic per slide Assertion-evidence; the title states the point in ~6 words
Arc Data with no story Beginning/middle/end Hook → roadmap → body → close; one clear takeaway
Delivery Reads slides; over time Roughly on time Timed; speaks to the audience; handles Q&A

Rubric 10 — Clinical & patient-facing writing — Chapter 36

⚠️ Educational only; not medical advice.

Criterion 1 2 3
SOAP discipline Conclusion smuggled into Objective Sections mostly separate S/O/A/P clean; assessment shows its uncertainty
Health literacy Clinical jargon, untranslated Mostly plain 6th–8th-grade level; concrete actions ("drink 8 glasses")
No misreading "As needed," "as directed" left vague Most instructions specific Cannot be read into an unsafe action; dose ceiling + window stated
Escalation trigger "When to call" missing Mentioned Explicit: what to do, how to know it's working, when to call for help

Rubric 11 — One-pager / policy brief — Chapter 37

Criterion 1 2 3
Survives a 60-second read Shrunken full report Skimmable Reader can decide in one minute
Recommends, not summarizes "Further research warranted" Leans toward a recommendation One clear recommendation up top
Stakes "Significant" A number 2–3 numbers that quantify the stakes
Honest compression Dropped a decision-changing caveat Caveats present Compressed to the truth, not past it

How to use these as an instructor

Hand students the relevant rubric with the assignment, not after. The criteria become the spec. For peer review, have reviewers score each row and cite the specific line that earned a 1 — a score without evidence isn't feedback. For grading, weight the rows by what the genre most needs (an incident report leans on "owners + dates" and "blameless"; a data memo leans on "order" and "so what?"). Open-ended tasks in the exercises and quizzes point here for self-assessment when no single answer key applies.