AI Venture Build · Capstone brief
VEN-10 · Expo / DECA fit
Where does the capstone already satisfy a scored criterion, where does it need reshaping, and where would the student be scored on something they have not done at all?
The question
Map what this bank produces onto the rubric of a competition the student is actually entering. Where does the capstone already satisfy a scored criterion, where does it need reshaping, and where would the student be scored on something they have not done at all?
System / materials
The current-year rubric or guidelines for one specific event — DECA (https://www.deca.org/), FBLA (https://www.fbla.org/), a regional expo, or a division showcase. Confirm the year: these guidelines change annually and mapping to a superseded rubric wastes a term. The student's completed or planned briefs as the evidence base. The point of the brief is that a teacher should not have to invent scoring.
Expected failure modes
Mapping to last year's rubric. Claiming coverage from adjacency rather than artifacts. Producing an all-green crosswalk, which means the mapping was not honest — the gaps are the useful output. Reshaping the work to chase points until it stops being true. Ignoring the event's format constraints, which are often scored as heavily as content.
Done looks like
A competition crosswalk: the event, division, and rubric year named; each scored criterion marked covered / partially covered / not addressed, with covered rows pointing at the specific artifact; a gap plan naming what would close each gap and roughly what it costs in student time; the format requirements noted; and an honest note on any criterion the student should not chase because doing so would misrepresent the work.
Five C's
CT: distinguishing rubric coverage from adjacency. CR: planning gap work within a real term. CO: a peer or advisor audits five rows against artifacts. CM: a crosswalk a teacher can score from directly. CZ: the integrity cost of shaping evidence to win points.
Mentor role
A CTSO advisor, competition judge, or business teacher audits a sample of rows. Standing instruction: reject rows claiming coverage the artifacts do not show. School-supervised.
Rubric calibration
R1: one event, one division, one rubric year. R2: every covered row traceable to an artifact. R3: comparator is the rubric itself. R4: gaps stated and costed in time. R5: the crosswalk is directly scorable. R6: names what the student will not reshape to win points.
Two ways this goes wrong
(a) A crosswalk against a superseded rubric. (b) An all-green table that quietly overstates what exists.
Credit lane fit
Lane A immediately, and the brief that makes the rest of this bank fit an event a division already runs. No verified credit claim.