{ "rubric": { "title": "WH-FINAL - Report and Code Peer Assessment", "free_form_criterion_comments": false, "skip_updating_points_possible": true, "criteria": { "0": { "description": "AS1-D1 - Problem Definition", "long_description": "Credit toward the analytical score.\n\nDefine the operational question that the diagnosis must answer. Full-credit evidence specifies a manageable warehouse activity and data scope, explains the operational importance of the question, and justifies what can be established within that scope. A justified narrow question is sufficient in scale.\n\nAssess the diagnosis using the report and its supporting analytical evidence together. Students select the profiles, performance measures, tables and figures needed for their argument. No minimum number of outputs or prescribed mix of profile categories determines the score.\n\nAward the highest level whose requirements are supported. An identifiable partial or incorrect attempt belongs at Insufficient when it falls below the Sufficient core. Missing means no assessable attempt addresses that criterion; an attempt can be assessable even when its claims are wrong.\n\nA focused diagnosis can receive full credit. Retaining current practice or identifying the need for further evidence can receive full credit when justified by the available evidence. Proposed operational benefits do not need to be measured to justify investigation, but must be identified as unverified.\n\nAssess each underlying shortcoming once in its primary criterion. Calculation and measurement errors belong to Analytical Validity; unsupported causal inference to Diagnostic Reasoning; omission of consequential available evidence to Evidence Selection. Assess another criterion lower only for a separately identified deficiency. Repeating the same unsupported assertion as the reason for a choice does not create a second defect. A distinct infeasible action or failure to connect a choice to the diagnosis can affect Justification of Choices.\n\nProblem Definition assesses the operational question and its scope. Evidence Selection assesses which evidence is relevant and why. Analytical Validity assesses the trustworthiness of the measures. Diagnostic Reasoning assesses what the findings warrant. Justification of Choices assesses what the diagnosis supports doing or investigating.\n\nOne decisive finding can support an Excellent focused diagnosis. Multiple findings, competing explanations and alternative choices are assessed where relevant; additional outputs or invented alternatives do not earn credit by themselves.\n\nUse the submitted report and inspectable analytical evidence together. An unperformed execution check or software setup problem alone does not establish an analytical defect. General language style, file packaging and report compilation are outside this rubric.\n\nThis rubric concerns the diagnosis and its implications for choices. It does not require proof of causation, successful intervention performance, a new dataset, an external benchmark, a formal evidence-mapping table or a prescribed sensitivity experiment.\n\nWhen the chosen next step is to obtain evidence, Excellent requires explaining how a relevant possible finding would affect the subsequent choice. Assess that explanation in the submitted work. Collecting new data or carrying out the proposed investigation is not required.", "points": 2, "criterion_use_range": false, "ratings": { "0": { "description": "Excellent", "long_description": "Sufficient: States an identifiable operational question and defines the activity and population examined. Defines the period when time affects the question. The question can be investigated using the available evidence and has a clear connection to warehouse performance.\n\nGood: Explains the operational importance of resolving the question. Distinguishes the performance concern being investigated from a preferred solution, so a different diagnosis remains possible.\n\nExcellent: Justifies the chosen boundaries in relation to the available evidence. Explains the consequences of excluding a relevant activity, population or period, or why the defined scope adequately covers the question.", "points": 2.0 }, "1": { "description": "Good", "long_description": "Sufficient: States an identifiable operational question and defines the activity and population examined. Defines the period when time affects the question. The question can be investigated using the available evidence and has a clear connection to warehouse performance.\n\nGood: Explains the operational importance of resolving the question. Distinguishes the performance concern being investigated from a preferred solution, so a different diagnosis remains possible.", "points": 1.6 }, "2": { "description": "Sufficient", "long_description": "States an identifiable operational question and defines the activity and population examined. Defines the period when time affects the question. The question can be investigated using the available evidence and has a clear connection to warehouse performance.", "points": 1.2 }, "3": { "description": "Insufficient", "long_description": "Identifies a warehouse concern, but the question or scope remains ambiguous, too broad for the evidence, or defined around a predetermined solution. Enough material is present to identify the intended investigation.", "points": 0.6 }, "4": { "description": "Missing", "long_description": "No identifiable operational question or intended diagnostic investigation is provided. A warehouse description alone does not establish what the diagnosis should answer.", "points": 0.0 } } }, "1": { "description": "AS1-D2 - Evidence Selection", "long_description": "Credit toward the analytical score.\n\nSelect evidence that answers the operational question. Full-credit evidence explains the contribution of the selected analytical evidence, prioritizes it by diagnostic importance and considers available findings that could materially qualify or contradict the diagnosis. One decisive finding can be sufficient in scale. Additional charts earn no credit by themselves.\n\nAssess the diagnosis using the report and its supporting analytical evidence together. Students select the profiles, performance measures, tables and figures needed for their argument. No minimum number of outputs or prescribed mix of profile categories determines the score.\n\nAward the highest level whose requirements are supported. An identifiable partial or incorrect attempt belongs at Insufficient when it falls below the Sufficient core. Missing means no assessable attempt addresses that criterion; an attempt can be assessable even when its claims are wrong.\n\nA focused diagnosis can receive full credit. Retaining current practice or identifying the need for further evidence can receive full credit when justified by the available evidence. Proposed operational benefits do not need to be measured to justify investigation, but must be identified as unverified.\n\nAssess each underlying shortcoming once in its primary criterion. Calculation and measurement errors belong to Analytical Validity; unsupported causal inference to Diagnostic Reasoning; omission of consequential available evidence to Evidence Selection. Assess another criterion lower only for a separately identified deficiency. Repeating the same unsupported assertion as the reason for a choice does not create a second defect. A distinct infeasible action or failure to connect a choice to the diagnosis can affect Justification of Choices.\n\nProblem Definition assesses the operational question and its scope. Evidence Selection assesses which evidence is relevant and why. Analytical Validity assesses the trustworthiness of the measures. Diagnostic Reasoning assesses what the findings warrant. Justification of Choices assesses what the diagnosis supports doing or investigating.\n\nOne decisive finding can support an Excellent focused diagnosis. Multiple findings, competing explanations and alternative choices are assessed where relevant; additional outputs or invented alternatives do not earn credit by themselves.\n\nUse the submitted report and inspectable analytical evidence together. An unperformed execution check or software setup problem alone does not establish an analytical defect. General language style, file packaging and report compilation are outside this rubric.\n\nThis rubric concerns the diagnosis and its implications for choices. It does not require proof of causation, successful intervention performance, a new dataset, an external benchmark, a formal evidence-mapping table or a prescribed sensitivity experiment.\n\nWhen the chosen next step is to obtain evidence, Excellent requires explaining how a relevant possible finding would affect the subsequent choice. Assess that explanation in the submitted work. Collecting new data or carrying out the proposed investigation is not required.", "points": 2, "criterion_use_range": false, "ratings": { "0": { "description": "Excellent", "long_description": "Sufficient: Selects profiles, performance measures or other analytical outputs that address the stated question. Explains the relevance of the principal findings and provides enough evidence to examine the proposed diagnosis.\n\nGood: Prioritizes findings by their importance to the question and justifies the selection. When several findings are used, explains their distinct contributions without treating repetition as stronger evidence.\n\nExcellent: Addresses consequential available evidence that could qualify or change the diagnosis and explains its effect on the selection. Where no such qualification is evident, explains why the selected evidence adequately answers the question.", "points": 2.0 }, "1": { "description": "Good", "long_description": "Sufficient: Selects profiles, performance measures or other analytical outputs that address the stated question. Explains the relevance of the principal findings and provides enough evidence to examine the proposed diagnosis.\n\nGood: Prioritizes findings by their importance to the question and justifies the selection. When several findings are used, explains their distinct contributions without treating repetition as stronger evidence.", "points": 1.6 }, "2": { "description": "Sufficient", "long_description": "Selects profiles, performance measures or other analytical outputs that address the stated question. Explains the relevance of the principal findings and provides enough evidence to examine the proposed diagnosis.", "points": 1.2 }, "3": { "description": "Insufficient", "long_description": "Provides some relevant findings, but their relevance is weakly explained, incidental results dominate, or relevant available evidence needed to address the question is overlooked. The attempted evidence selection remains assessable.", "points": 0.6 }, "4": { "description": "Missing", "long_description": "No assessable analytical evidence is selected for the operational question. A list of possible profiles or measures without findings does not establish an evidence selection.", "points": 0.0 } } }, "2": { "description": "AS1-D3 - Analytical Validity", "long_description": "Credit toward the analytical score.\n\nEstablish whether the selected measurements can be trusted. Full-credit evidence defines relevant quantities, units and populations, and periods when time affects interpretation. It uses suitable calculations and technical displays and justifies consequential preparation choices or proxies. Results remain traceable to their data and calculation. The judgment concerns analytical correctness rather than code packaging or general report presentation.\n\nAssess the diagnosis using the report and its supporting analytical evidence together. Students select the profiles, performance measures, tables and figures needed for their argument. No minimum number of outputs or prescribed mix of profile categories determines the score.\n\nAward the highest level whose requirements are supported. An identifiable partial or incorrect attempt belongs at Insufficient when it falls below the Sufficient core. Missing means no assessable attempt addresses that criterion; an attempt can be assessable even when its claims are wrong.\n\nA focused diagnosis can receive full credit. Retaining current practice or identifying the need for further evidence can receive full credit when justified by the available evidence. Proposed operational benefits do not need to be measured to justify investigation, but must be identified as unverified.\n\nAssess each underlying shortcoming once in its primary criterion. Calculation and measurement errors belong to Analytical Validity; unsupported causal inference to Diagnostic Reasoning; omission of consequential available evidence to Evidence Selection. Assess another criterion lower only for a separately identified deficiency. Repeating the same unsupported assertion as the reason for a choice does not create a second defect. A distinct infeasible action or failure to connect a choice to the diagnosis can affect Justification of Choices.\n\nProblem Definition assesses the operational question and its scope. Evidence Selection assesses which evidence is relevant and why. Analytical Validity assesses the trustworthiness of the measures. Diagnostic Reasoning assesses what the findings warrant. Justification of Choices assesses what the diagnosis supports doing or investigating.\n\nOne decisive finding can support an Excellent focused diagnosis. Multiple findings, competing explanations and alternative choices are assessed where relevant; additional outputs or invented alternatives do not earn credit by themselves.\n\nUse the submitted report and inspectable analytical evidence together. An unperformed execution check or software setup problem alone does not establish an analytical defect. General language style, file packaging and report compilation are outside this rubric.\n\nThis rubric concerns the diagnosis and its implications for choices. It does not require proof of causation, successful intervention performance, a new dataset, an external benchmark, a formal evidence-mapping table or a prescribed sensitivity experiment.\n\nWhen the chosen next step is to obtain evidence, Excellent requires explaining how a relevant possible finding would affect the subsequent choice. Assess that explanation in the submitted work. Collecting new data or carrying out the proposed investigation is not required.", "points": 2, "criterion_use_range": false, "ratings": { "0": { "description": "Excellent", "long_description": "Sufficient: Defines relevant quantities, populations and units, and the period when time affects their interpretation. Uses appropriate calculations and technical displays with an identifiable data and calculation basis. States material assumptions and proxies. Any remaining error does not undermine the principal measured findings.\n\nGood: Justifies consequential data preparation choices, assumptions and proxies. Uses appropriate available checks to establish consistency between the data, calculation and reported measurements.\n\nExcellent: Examines the most consequential measurement limitation or assumption and explains which principal results remain trustworthy and why. States any unresolved threat to analytical validity.", "points": 2.0 }, "1": { "description": "Good", "long_description": "Sufficient: Defines relevant quantities, populations and units, and the period when time affects their interpretation. Uses appropriate calculations and technical displays with an identifiable data and calculation basis. States material assumptions and proxies. Any remaining error does not undermine the principal measured findings.\n\nGood: Justifies consequential data preparation choices, assumptions and proxies. Uses appropriate available checks to establish consistency between the data, calculation and reported measurements.", "points": 1.6 }, "2": { "description": "Sufficient", "long_description": "Defines relevant quantities, populations and units, and the period when time affects their interpretation. Uses appropriate calculations and technical displays with an identifiable data and calculation basis. States material assumptions and proxies. Any remaining error does not undermine the principal measured findings.", "points": 1.2 }, "3": { "description": "Insufficient", "long_description": "Provides assessable calculations or outputs, but errors, unclear denominators, unsuitable aggregation or unsupported assumptions leave a principal measured finding unreliable. Enough analytical work is present to identify the basis of the attempted measurements.", "points": 0.6 }, "4": { "description": "Missing", "long_description": "Provides no assessable measurements or calculation evidence from which the validity of the selected findings can be judged. Numerical assertions without an identifiable analytical basis are unsupported.", "points": 0.0 } } }, "3": { "description": "AS1-D4 - Diagnostic Reasoning", "long_description": "Credit toward the analytical score.\n\nExplain what the findings establish about the current operation. Full-credit evidence connects observed patterns, imbalances or constraints into a warranted diagnosis, weighs plausible explanations where relevant, and identifies the uncertainty that matters to the conclusion. A carefully justified statement that the available evidence cannot distinguish explanations is acceptable.\n\nAssess the diagnosis using the report and its supporting analytical evidence together. Students select the profiles, performance measures, tables and figures needed for their argument. No minimum number of outputs or prescribed mix of profile categories determines the score.\n\nAward the highest level whose requirements are supported. An identifiable partial or incorrect attempt belongs at Insufficient when it falls below the Sufficient core. Missing means no assessable attempt addresses that criterion; an attempt can be assessable even when its claims are wrong.\n\nA focused diagnosis can receive full credit. Retaining current practice or identifying the need for further evidence can receive full credit when justified by the available evidence. Proposed operational benefits do not need to be measured to justify investigation, but must be identified as unverified.\n\nAssess each underlying shortcoming once in its primary criterion. Calculation and measurement errors belong to Analytical Validity; unsupported causal inference to Diagnostic Reasoning; omission of consequential available evidence to Evidence Selection. Assess another criterion lower only for a separately identified deficiency. Repeating the same unsupported assertion as the reason for a choice does not create a second defect. A distinct infeasible action or failure to connect a choice to the diagnosis can affect Justification of Choices.\n\nProblem Definition assesses the operational question and its scope. Evidence Selection assesses which evidence is relevant and why. Analytical Validity assesses the trustworthiness of the measures. Diagnostic Reasoning assesses what the findings warrant. Justification of Choices assesses what the diagnosis supports doing or investigating.\n\nOne decisive finding can support an Excellent focused diagnosis. Multiple findings, competing explanations and alternative choices are assessed where relevant; additional outputs or invented alternatives do not earn credit by themselves.\n\nUse the submitted report and inspectable analytical evidence together. An unperformed execution check or software setup problem alone does not establish an analytical defect. General language style, file packaging and report compilation are outside this rubric.\n\nThis rubric concerns the diagnosis and its implications for choices. It does not require proof of causation, successful intervention performance, a new dataset, an external benchmark, a formal evidence-mapping table or a prescribed sensitivity experiment.\n\nWhen the chosen next step is to obtain evidence, Excellent requires explaining how a relevant possible finding would affect the subsequent choice. Assess that explanation in the submitted work. Collecting new data or carrying out the proposed investigation is not required.", "points": 2, "criterion_use_range": false, "ratings": { "0": { "description": "Excellent", "long_description": "Sufficient: Explains the operational meaning of the principal findings and supports the diagnosis with specific evidence. Distinguishes observed association from an established cause and keeps the conclusion within what the evidence can support.\n\nGood: Develops a coherent explanation from the selected evidence and states the material limitations that qualify it. Where a credible competing explanation is relevant, considers what the available evidence says about it.\n\nExcellent: Explains the confidence warranted by the available evidence. Where plausible explanations remain, weighs their support and identifies the consequential unresolved distinction; otherwise explains why the main diagnostic uncertainty is adequately resolved.", "points": 2.0 }, "1": { "description": "Good", "long_description": "Sufficient: Explains the operational meaning of the principal findings and supports the diagnosis with specific evidence. Distinguishes observed association from an established cause and keeps the conclusion within what the evidence can support.\n\nGood: Develops a coherent explanation from the selected evidence and states the material limitations that qualify it. Where a credible competing explanation is relevant, considers what the available evidence says about it.", "points": 1.6 }, "2": { "description": "Sufficient", "long_description": "Explains the operational meaning of the principal findings and supports the diagnosis with specific evidence. Distinguishes observed association from an established cause and keeps the conclusion within what the evidence can support.", "points": 1.2 }, "3": { "description": "Insufficient", "long_description": "Offers an assessable interpretation, but an important inferential step is missing, the reasoning conflicts with the findings it discusses, or a material causal claim exceeds the evidence. The attempted interpretation does not establish a defensible diagnosis.", "points": 0.6 }, "4": { "description": "Missing", "long_description": "No assessable interpretation of the analytical findings is provided. Tables, plots or isolated numerical observations alone do not explain the operational condition or its significance.", "points": 0.0 } } }, "4": { "description": "AS1-D5 - Justification of Choices", "long_description": "Credit toward the analytical score.\n\nExplain how the diagnosis informs the next operational or analytical choice. Full-credit evidence gives a proportionate reason to investigate a change, retain current practice or obtain further evidence. It states what remains unverified, what evidence or condition would justify reconsideration, and how that would affect the next decision. Assess the justification whether the choice is to change operations, retain current practice or investigate further.\n\nAssess the diagnosis using the report and its supporting analytical evidence together. Students select the profiles, performance measures, tables and figures needed for their argument. No minimum number of outputs or prescribed mix of profile categories determines the score.\n\nAward the highest level whose requirements are supported. An identifiable partial or incorrect attempt belongs at Insufficient when it falls below the Sufficient core. Missing means no assessable attempt addresses that criterion; an attempt can be assessable even when its claims are wrong.\n\nA focused diagnosis can receive full credit. Retaining current practice or identifying the need for further evidence can receive full credit when justified by the available evidence. Proposed operational benefits do not need to be measured to justify investigation, but must be identified as unverified.\n\nAssess each underlying shortcoming once in its primary criterion. Calculation and measurement errors belong to Analytical Validity; unsupported causal inference to Diagnostic Reasoning; omission of consequential available evidence to Evidence Selection. Assess another criterion lower only for a separately identified deficiency. Repeating the same unsupported assertion as the reason for a choice does not create a second defect. A distinct infeasible action or failure to connect a choice to the diagnosis can affect Justification of Choices.\n\nProblem Definition assesses the operational question and its scope. Evidence Selection assesses which evidence is relevant and why. Analytical Validity assesses the trustworthiness of the measures. Diagnostic Reasoning assesses what the findings warrant. Justification of Choices assesses what the diagnosis supports doing or investigating.\n\nOne decisive finding can support an Excellent focused diagnosis. Multiple findings, competing explanations and alternative choices are assessed where relevant; additional outputs or invented alternatives do not earn credit by themselves.\n\nUse the submitted report and inspectable analytical evidence together. An unperformed execution check or software setup problem alone does not establish an analytical defect. General language style, file packaging and report compilation are outside this rubric.\n\nThis rubric concerns the diagnosis and its implications for choices. It does not require proof of causation, successful intervention performance, a new dataset, an external benchmark, a formal evidence-mapping table or a prescribed sensitivity experiment.\n\nWhen the chosen next step is to obtain evidence, Excellent requires explaining how a relevant possible finding would affect the subsequent choice. Assess that explanation in the submitted work. Collecting new data or carrying out the proposed investigation is not required.", "points": 2, "criterion_use_range": false, "ratings": { "0": { "description": "Excellent", "long_description": "Sufficient: Connects the diagnosis to a specific, plausible operational or analytical choice. Gives an evidence-based reason for investigating a change, retaining current practice or obtaining further evidence, with claims proportionate to what has been established.\n\nGood: States the purpose of the choice and explains how relevant operational constraints affect it. Identifies consequential assumptions or expected benefits of that choice that remain unverified. Where a credible alternative could change the decision, explains why the proposed choice is preferable.\n\nExcellent: Identifies evidence or an operational condition that would justify reconsidering the choice and explains how it would affect the next decision. Explains why the scale of action or investigation is proportionate to the remaining uncertainty.", "points": 2.0 }, "1": { "description": "Good", "long_description": "Sufficient: Connects the diagnosis to a specific, plausible operational or analytical choice. Gives an evidence-based reason for investigating a change, retaining current practice or obtaining further evidence, with claims proportionate to what has been established.\n\nGood: States the purpose of the choice and explains how relevant operational constraints affect it. Identifies consequential assumptions or expected benefits of that choice that remain unverified. Where a credible alternative could change the decision, explains why the proposed choice is preferable.", "points": 1.6 }, "2": { "description": "Sufficient", "long_description": "Connects the diagnosis to a specific, plausible operational or analytical choice. Gives an evidence-based reason for investigating a change, retaining current practice or obtaining further evidence, with claims proportionate to what has been established.", "points": 1.2 }, "3": { "description": "Insufficient", "long_description": "Proposes an identifiable choice, but the connection to the diagnosis is missing or implausible, or a separately evidenced operational constraint makes the choice implausible. The intended action or investigation remains assessable.", "points": 0.6 }, "4": { "description": "Missing", "long_description": "No assessable operational or analytical choice follows from the diagnosis. A generic request for improvement does not identify an assessable action, investigation or retention of current practice.", "points": 0.0 } } }, "5": { "description": "AS2-C1 - Model Scope", "long_description": "Credit toward the analytical score.\n\nThe representation includes the relevant products, flows, resources, constraints, and performance measures without unsupported detail.", "points": 2, "criterion_use_range": false, "ratings": { "0": { "description": "Excellent", "long_description": "Sufficient: Defines products, the storage-location unit, I/O points, flows, resources, constraints and performance measures. The scope is internally consistent and its exclusions and simplifications are stated.\n\nGood: Justifies the selected model elements and boundaries using warehouse data or activity profiles, and explains their relevance to the storage decision.\n\nExcellent: Explains how exclusions, simplifications and the location definition limit the model's conclusions and the warehouse decisions it can support.", "points": 2.0 }, "1": { "description": "Good", "long_description": "Sufficient: Defines products, the storage-location unit, I/O points, flows, resources, constraints and performance measures. The scope is internally consistent and its exclusions and simplifications are stated.\n\nGood: Justifies the selected model elements and boundaries using warehouse data or activity profiles, and explains their relevance to the storage decision.", "points": 1.6 }, "2": { "description": "Sufficient", "long_description": "Defines products, the storage-location unit, I/O points, flows, resources, constraints and performance measures. The scope is internally consistent and its exclusions and simplifications are stated.", "points": 1.2 }, "3": { "description": "Insufficient", "long_description": "Relevant scope evidence is present, but conflicting boundaries or missing product, location or flow definitions prevent a reliable interpretation of the modeled assignment.", "points": 0.6 }, "4": { "description": "Missing", "long_description": "No relevant evidence defining the model scope is provided.", "points": 0.0 } } }, "6": { "description": "AS2-C2 - Evidence Traceability", "long_description": "Credit toward the analytical score.\n\nEvery modeled element is linked to supplied data, an explicit assumption, or a documented evidence gap.", "points": 2, "criterion_use_range": false, "ratings": { "0": { "description": "Excellent", "long_description": "Sufficient: Links modeled elements and main parameters to identified sources, explicit assumptions or documented gaps. States units and time windows, with derivations that can be followed.\n\nGood: Identifies exact data fields, selection rules and calculations for distances, trip frequencies, handling costs and space requirements. Justifies assumptions using the available evidence.\n\nExcellent: Explains how conversions, proxy choices and source limitations could affect the parameter estimates or the interpretation of the comparison.", "points": 2.0 }, "1": { "description": "Good", "long_description": "Sufficient: Links modeled elements and main parameters to identified sources, explicit assumptions or documented gaps. States units and time windows, with derivations that can be followed.\n\nGood: Identifies exact data fields, selection rules and calculations for distances, trip frequencies, handling costs and space requirements. Justifies assumptions using the available evidence.", "points": 1.6 }, "2": { "description": "Sufficient", "long_description": "Links modeled elements and main parameters to identified sources, explicit assumptions or documented gaps. States units and time windows, with derivations that can be followed.", "points": 1.2 }, "3": { "description": "Insufficient", "long_description": "Relevant inputs are reported, but important sources or derivations cannot be followed, or unit and time-window definitions are inconsistent. The parameter estimates cannot be interpreted reliably.", "points": 0.6 }, "4": { "description": "Missing", "long_description": "No relevant evidence linking model inputs or assumptions to their sources is provided.", "points": 0.0 } } }, "7": { "description": "AS2-C3 - Product-Assignment Logic", "long_description": "Credit toward the analytical score.\n\nThe proposed policy uses appropriate product and demand characteristics and is stated precisely enough to implement.", "points": 2, "criterion_use_range": false, "ratings": { "0": { "description": "Excellent", "long_description": "Sufficient: Provides correct sets, parameters, variables, objective and constraints, consistent with distances, weights, space requirements and allocated quantities. Gives a valid allocation, basic placement rule and accurate solution status.\n\nGood: Supports optimality for the selected scope. Shows current and proposed allocations correctly on the warehouse layout. Specifies treatment of new or changed SKUs and when to recalculate the assignment.\n\nExcellent: Explains why the formulation, variable quantities, space requirements and weighted objective represent the intended operating policy, and where that representation limits the decision.", "points": 2.0 }, "1": { "description": "Good", "long_description": "Sufficient: Provides correct sets, parameters, variables, objective and constraints, consistent with distances, weights, space requirements and allocated quantities. Gives a valid allocation, basic placement rule and accurate solution status.\n\nGood: Supports optimality for the selected scope. Shows current and proposed allocations correctly on the warehouse layout. Specifies treatment of new or changed SKUs and when to recalculate the assignment.", "points": 1.6 }, "2": { "description": "Sufficient", "long_description": "Provides correct sets, parameters, variables, objective and constraints, consistent with distances, weights, space requirements and allocated quantities. Gives a valid allocation, basic placement rule and accurate solution status.", "points": 1.2 }, "3": { "description": "Insufficient", "long_description": "Relevant assignment work is present, but errors or missing evidence in the formulation, weights or allocated quantities prevent establishing valid assignment logic. Alternatively, the basic storage rule cannot be implemented as stated.", "points": 0.6 }, "4": { "description": "Missing", "long_description": "No relevant evidence of product-assignment logic is provided.", "points": 0.0 } } }, "8": { "description": "AS2-C4 - Feasibility and Evaluation", "long_description": "Credit toward the analytical score.\n\nCapacity, compatibility, replenishment, and service constraints are checked, and the intervention is compared with the baseline.", "points": 2, "criterion_use_range": false, "ratings": { "0": { "description": "Excellent", "long_description": "Sufficient: Addresses capacity, compatibility, replenishment and service, identifying unverified constraints. Compares baseline and proposed allocations using consistent inputs and correct objective values. Reports interpretable absolute and relative differences, with feasibility claims limited to supported checks.\n\nGood: Reports each check's result or explains why it is unavailable. Demonstrates matched scope, workload, period, units and weights, and states how each unverified constraint limits feasibility.\n\nExcellent: Explains the consequences of the checks and data gaps. Shows how the comparison preserves workload and cost meaning, including relevant differences in location quantities.", "points": 2.0 }, "1": { "description": "Good", "long_description": "Sufficient: Addresses capacity, compatibility, replenishment and service, identifying unverified constraints. Compares baseline and proposed allocations using consistent inputs and correct objective values. Reports interpretable absolute and relative differences, with feasibility claims limited to supported checks.\n\nGood: Reports each check's result or explains why it is unavailable. Demonstrates matched scope, workload, period, units and weights, and states how each unverified constraint limits feasibility.", "points": 1.6 }, "2": { "description": "Sufficient", "long_description": "Addresses capacity, compatibility, replenishment and service, identifying unverified constraints. Compares baseline and proposed allocations using consistent inputs and correct objective values. Reports interpretable absolute and relative differences, with feasibility claims limited to supported checks.", "points": 1.2 }, "3": { "description": "Insufficient", "long_description": "Relevant checks or comparison results are present, but omitted checks, incorrect evaluation or unmatched inputs invalidate a central conclusion. Unsupported claims of feasibility also fall here, including claims about constraints for which no evidence is available.", "points": 0.6 }, "4": { "description": "Missing", "long_description": "No relevant feasibility or baseline-comparison evidence is provided.", "points": 0.0 } } }, "9": { "description": "AS2-C5 - Decision Insight", "long_description": "Credit toward the analytical score.\n\nThe report explains why the product assignment is suitable, where it is sensitive, and what management must monitor.", "points": 2, "criterion_use_range": false, "ratings": { "0": { "description": "Excellent", "long_description": "Sufficient: Gives a recommendation consistent with the comparison and explains its operational meaning. Addresses sensitivity to the main assumptions, limitations and what management should monitor.\n\nGood: Quantifies the operational effects and explains how the main assumptions affect them. Explains relevant trade-offs and links monitoring indicators to implementation risks or conditions.\n\nExcellent: Identifies when the recommendation would change. Uses quantitative evidence to prioritize trade-offs and monitoring needs, distinguishing what management can decide now from what requires further evidence.", "points": 2.0 }, "1": { "description": "Good", "long_description": "Sufficient: Gives a recommendation consistent with the comparison and explains its operational meaning. Addresses sensitivity to the main assumptions, limitations and what management should monitor.\n\nGood: Quantifies the operational effects and explains how the main assumptions affect them. Explains relevant trade-offs and links monitoring indicators to implementation risks or conditions.", "points": 1.6 }, "2": { "description": "Sufficient", "long_description": "Gives a recommendation consistent with the comparison and explains its operational meaning. Addresses sensitivity to the main assumptions, limitations and what management should monitor.", "points": 1.2 }, "3": { "description": "Insufficient", "long_description": "Relevant interpretation is present, but the recommendation contradicts the evidence or depends on unsupported effects or causal claims. Missing discussion of sensitivity, limitations or monitoring leaves the decision unsupported.", "points": 0.6 }, "4": { "description": "Missing", "long_description": "No relevant management interpretation or recommendation is provided.", "points": 0.0 } } }, "10": { "description": "AS3-C1 - Requirements and Capacity", "long_description": "Credit toward the analytical score.\n\nSpace, storage, throughput, adjacency, and handling requirements are quantified and internally consistent.", "points": 2, "criterion_use_range": false, "ratings": { "0": { "description": "Excellent", "long_description": "Sufficient: Quantifies space, storage, throughput and handling requirements for a stated scope, with consistent units and traceable assumptions. Defines relevant adjacency needs and accounts for all stock and activities sharing the space.\n\nGood: Justifies inventory, capacity and access-space allowances, and any conversion of adjacency priorities into model weights.\n\nExcellent: Explains which requirements constrain the proposal and how uncertain estimates or omitted activities could change the stated capacity or space needs.", "points": 2.0 }, "1": { "description": "Good", "long_description": "Sufficient: Quantifies space, storage, throughput and handling requirements for a stated scope, with consistent units and traceable assumptions. Defines relevant adjacency needs and accounts for all stock and activities sharing the space.\n\nGood: Justifies inventory, capacity and access-space allowances, and any conversion of adjacency priorities into model weights.", "points": 1.6 }, "2": { "description": "Sufficient", "long_description": "Quantifies space, storage, throughput and handling requirements for a stated scope, with consistent units and traceable assumptions. Defines relevant adjacency needs and accounts for all stock and activities sharing the space.", "points": 1.2 }, "3": { "description": "Insufficient", "long_description": "Relevant requirements are reported, but unsupported quantities, incompatible units or omitted storage or handling needs invalidate a central capacity or space estimate.", "points": 0.6 }, "4": { "description": "Missing", "long_description": "No relevant requirements or capacity evidence is provided.", "points": 0.0 } } }, "11": { "description": "AS3-C2 - Layout Logic", "long_description": "Credit toward the analytical score.\n\nThe proposed arrangement has clear departments, flows, interfaces, and decision rules tied to the storage model.", "points": 2, "criterion_use_range": false, "ratings": { "0": { "description": "Excellent", "long_description": "Sufficient: Defines a clear layout change connected to the diagnosed problem and storage requirements. Shows current and proposed arrangements at comparable scales, with labeled areas, handling interfaces and fixed boundaries.\n\nGood: Explains how flow, adjacency and storage decisions support the arrangement, and why the chosen quantitative model suits the layout decision.\n\nExcellent: Explains interactions between placement, shared space, access and material flows, identifying the limits of the arrangement and its modeling simplifications.", "points": 2.0 }, "1": { "description": "Good", "long_description": "Sufficient: Defines a clear layout change connected to the diagnosed problem and storage requirements. Shows current and proposed arrangements at comparable scales, with labeled areas, handling interfaces and fixed boundaries.\n\nGood: Explains how flow, adjacency and storage decisions support the arrangement, and why the chosen quantitative model suits the layout decision.", "points": 1.6 }, "2": { "description": "Sufficient", "long_description": "Defines a clear layout change connected to the diagnosed problem and storage requirements. Shows current and proposed arrangements at comparable scales, with labeled areas, handling interfaces and fixed boundaries.", "points": 1.2 }, "3": { "description": "Insufficient", "long_description": "Relevant proposal evidence is present, but the current/proposed comparison, flows or interfaces are missing or inconsistent enough to prevent interpreting the layout change.", "points": 0.6 }, "4": { "description": "Missing", "long_description": "No relevant layout-model or arrangement evidence is provided.", "points": 0.0 } } }, "12": { "description": "AS3-C3 - Quantitative Evaluation", "long_description": "Credit toward the analytical score.\n\nDistances, space use, congestion proxies, or other relevant measures are calculated correctly against the baseline under consistent assumptions.", "points": 2, "criterion_use_range": false, "ratings": { "0": { "description": "Excellent", "long_description": "Sufficient: Uses an appropriate calculation or optimization model with stated inputs, relationships, assumptions and constraints; defines variables and objective when optimizing. Reports correct baseline, proposal and change for space/capacity and a relevant operational measure on matched populations, periods, units and assumptions, with calculations traceable to the supplied evidence.\n\nGood: Demonstrates comparability of the inputs and measures. Explains calculation checks and, where relevant, the meaning of solver status, bounds or gaps.\n\nExcellent: Explains how input uncertainty, proxy measures or solution-quality limits could change interpretation of the comparison or shift burdens elsewhere.", "points": 2.0 }, "1": { "description": "Good", "long_description": "Sufficient: Uses an appropriate calculation or optimization model with stated inputs, relationships, assumptions and constraints; defines variables and objective when optimizing. Reports correct baseline, proposal and change for space/capacity and a relevant operational measure on matched populations, periods, units and assumptions, with calculations traceable to the supplied evidence.\n\nGood: Demonstrates comparability of the inputs and measures. Explains calculation checks and, where relevant, the meaning of solver status, bounds or gaps.", "points": 1.6 }, "2": { "description": "Sufficient", "long_description": "Uses an appropriate calculation or optimization model with stated inputs, relationships, assumptions and constraints; defines variables and objective when optimizing. Reports correct baseline, proposal and change for space/capacity and a relevant operational measure on matched populations, periods, units and assumptions, with calculations traceable to the supplied evidence.", "points": 1.2 }, "3": { "description": "Insufficient", "long_description": "Relevant results are present, but no appropriate quantitative model is established, or incorrect calculations, unmatched inputs or misinterpreted proxy measures invalidate a central comparison.", "points": 0.6 }, "4": { "description": "Missing", "long_description": "No relevant numerical baseline comparison is provided.", "points": 0.0 } } }, "13": { "description": "AS3-C4 - Operational Feasibility", "long_description": "Credit toward the analytical score.\n\nAccess, safety, replenishment, staging, and material-handling constraints are addressed.", "points": 2, "criterion_use_range": false, "ratings": { "0": { "description": "Excellent", "long_description": "Sufficient: Checks sufficient capacity and access for the scope, including reserve/active interactions, full-case picks and replenishment. Addresses relevant staging, fixed-interface and equipment constraints, identifying safety or operational conditions that still need verification.\n\nGood: Supports relevant checks with dimensions, capacities, workload evidence or documented requirements, linking each unresolved check to an explicit implementation condition.\n\nExcellent: Explains practical consequences of remaining constraints and evidence gaps, including displaced workload and conditions necessary for the proposal to operate as intended.", "points": 2.0 }, "1": { "description": "Good", "long_description": "Sufficient: Checks sufficient capacity and access for the scope, including reserve/active interactions, full-case picks and replenishment. Addresses relevant staging, fixed-interface and equipment constraints, identifying safety or operational conditions that still need verification.\n\nGood: Supports relevant checks with dimensions, capacities, workload evidence or documented requirements, linking each unresolved check to an explicit implementation condition.", "points": 1.6 }, "2": { "description": "Sufficient", "long_description": "Checks sufficient capacity and access for the scope, including reserve/active interactions, full-case picks and replenishment. Addresses relevant staging, fixed-interface and equipment constraints, identifying safety or operational conditions that still need verification.", "points": 1.2 }, "3": { "description": "Insufficient", "long_description": "Relevant checks are present, but insufficient capacity, unsupported safety claims or unaddressed material access, replenishment or equipment restrictions invalidate operational feasibility.", "points": 0.6 }, "4": { "description": "Missing", "long_description": "No relevant operational-feasibility evidence is provided.", "points": 0.0 } } }, "14": { "description": "AS3-C5 - Decision Justification", "long_description": "Credit toward the analytical score.\n\nThe selected layout is justified against credible alternatives, limitations, and implementation consequences.", "points": 2, "criterion_use_range": false, "ratings": { "0": { "description": "Excellent", "long_description": "Sufficient: Supports the recommendation with the baseline/proposal comparison, sensitivity analysis of a consequential uncertainty, and comparison with one other credible layout option. Addresses the main limitations and implementation consequences.\n\nGood: Justifies the alternative and uncertainty examined, explains how sensitivity affects the preferred option, and links implementation conditions and monitoring to the main risks.\n\nExcellent: Uses the evidence to prioritize actions and trade-offs, identifies what could reverse the recommendation, and separates supported decisions from conditions needing further evidence.", "points": 2.0 }, "1": { "description": "Good", "long_description": "Sufficient: Supports the recommendation with the baseline/proposal comparison, sensitivity analysis of a consequential uncertainty, and comparison with one other credible layout option. Addresses the main limitations and implementation consequences.\n\nGood: Justifies the alternative and uncertainty examined, explains how sensitivity affects the preferred option, and links implementation conditions and monitoring to the main risks.", "points": 1.6 }, "2": { "description": "Sufficient", "long_description": "Supports the recommendation with the baseline/proposal comparison, sensitivity analysis of a consequential uncertainty, and comparison with one other credible layout option. Addresses the main limitations and implementation consequences.", "points": 1.2 }, "3": { "description": "Insufficient", "long_description": "Relevant interpretation is present, but the recommendation contradicts the evidence, lacks sensitivity analysis or a credible alternative, or ignores a material implementation condition.", "points": 0.6 }, "4": { "description": "Missing", "long_description": "No relevant layout recommendation or decision justification is provided.", "points": 0.0 } } }, "15": { "description": "AS4-C1 - Process Definition / Task 1", "long_description": "Credit toward the analytical score.\n\nBaseline and proposed rules, roles, scope, and assumptions are clear and internally consistent.", "points": 1, "criterion_use_range": false, "ratings": { "0": { "description": "Excellent", "long_description": "Sufficient: Defines the baseline and changed picking rules, roles, scope and assumptions consistently, from order release to completed orders. Identifies the fixed storage, layout and equipment, and distinguishes company facts, assumptions and missing inputs.\n\nGood: Justifies the study scope and explains how demand, order release and work assignment are represented, including the consequences of missing inputs.\n\nExcellent: Explains which process assumptions limit the findings and how plausible departures would change their interpretation.", "points": 1.0 }, "1": { "description": "Good", "long_description": "Sufficient: Defines the baseline and changed picking rules, roles, scope and assumptions consistently, from order release to completed orders. Identifies the fixed storage, layout and equipment, and distinguishes company facts, assumptions and missing inputs.\n\nGood: Justifies the study scope and explains how demand, order release and work assignment are represented, including the consequences of missing inputs.", "points": 0.8 }, "2": { "description": "Sufficient", "long_description": "Defines the baseline and changed picking rules, roles, scope and assumptions consistently, from order release to completed orders. Identifies the fixed storage, layout and equipment, and distinguishes company facts, assumptions and missing inputs.", "points": 0.6 }, "3": { "description": "Insufficient", "long_description": "Relevant process evidence is present, but contradictory rules, scope or assumptions prevent interpreting the baseline or proposal.", "points": 0.3 }, "4": { "description": "Missing", "long_description": "No relevant baseline or proposed picking-process definition is provided.", "points": 0.0 } } }, "16": { "description": "AS4-C2 - Process Definition / Task 2", "long_description": "Credit toward the analytical score.\n\nPicking rules, roles, scope, and assumptions are clear and internally consistent for each retained combination.", "points": 1, "criterion_use_range": false, "ratings": { "0": { "description": "Excellent", "long_description": "Sufficient: Lists every retained storage, layout and equipment combination and defines its picking rules, roles, scope and assumptions consistently, from order release to completion. Identifies relevant interfaces, company facts, assumptions and missing inputs.\n\nGood: Explains how the process changes between retained combinations and why any shared strategy or assumptions can represent each combination.\n\nExcellent: Explains how differences in release, assignment or interfaces limit comparisons and where further process evidence could change the findings.", "points": 1.0 }, "1": { "description": "Good", "long_description": "Sufficient: Lists every retained storage, layout and equipment combination and defines its picking rules, roles, scope and assumptions consistently, from order release to completion. Identifies relevant interfaces, company facts, assumptions and missing inputs.\n\nGood: Explains how the process changes between retained combinations and why any shared strategy or assumptions can represent each combination.", "points": 0.8 }, "2": { "description": "Sufficient", "long_description": "Lists every retained storage, layout and equipment combination and defines its picking rules, roles, scope and assumptions consistently, from order release to completion. Identifies relevant interfaces, company facts, assumptions and missing inputs.", "points": 0.6 }, "3": { "description": "Insufficient", "long_description": "Relevant definitions are present, but a retained combination is omitted or contradictory rules and interfaces prevent interpreting its picking process.", "points": 0.3 }, "4": { "description": "Missing", "long_description": "No relevant picking-process definition for retained designs is provided.", "points": 0.0 } } }, "17": { "description": "AS4-C3 - Design Logic and Integration / Task 1", "long_description": "Credit toward the analytical score.\n\nRouting and other picking choices suit the workload and fixed warehouse, with justified methods and assumptions.", "points": 1, "criterion_use_range": false, "ratings": { "0": { "description": "Excellent", "long_description": "Sufficient: Explains why the selected routing method and other changed picking decisions suit the workload, aisle structure, storage policy and fixed equipment. States the method assumptions and their fit to the modeled warehouse.\n\nGood: Uses workload or warehouse evidence to justify the choices and adaptations, explaining interactions with any batching, work assignment, zones or sorting used.\n\nExcellent: Evaluates consequential simplifications and method trade-offs, explaining when another suitable picking approach would become preferable.", "points": 1.0 }, "1": { "description": "Good", "long_description": "Sufficient: Explains why the selected routing method and other changed picking decisions suit the workload, aisle structure, storage policy and fixed equipment. States the method assumptions and their fit to the modeled warehouse.\n\nGood: Uses workload or warehouse evidence to justify the choices and adaptations, explaining interactions with any batching, work assignment, zones or sorting used.", "points": 0.8 }, "2": { "description": "Sufficient", "long_description": "Explains why the selected routing method and other changed picking decisions suit the workload, aisle structure, storage policy and fixed equipment. States the method assumptions and their fit to the modeled warehouse.", "points": 0.6 }, "3": { "description": "Insufficient", "long_description": "Relevant choices are described, but unsupported method assumptions or incompatibility with the workload or fixed warehouse invalidate the design rationale.", "points": 0.3 }, "4": { "description": "Missing", "long_description": "No relevant justification of picking-method choices is provided.", "points": 0.0 } } }, "18": { "description": "AS4-C4 - Design Logic and Integration / Task 2", "long_description": "Credit toward the analytical score.\n\nPicking choices suit the workload and retained storage, layout, and equipment combinations, with justified methods and assumptions.", "points": 1, "criterion_use_range": false, "ratings": { "0": { "description": "Excellent", "long_description": "Sufficient: Justifies a compatible picking strategy and routing or travel model for every retained design. Checks relevant aisle geometry, depot position, storage pattern, demand and equipment assumptions against each design.\n\nGood: Explains adaptations and interactions among picking, storage, layout and equipment, using case evidence to justify model inputs and any shared strategy.\n\nExcellent: Evaluates where approximation or model assumptions could alter the relative suitability of the retained designs and identifies a credible alternative approach.", "points": 1.0 }, "1": { "description": "Good", "long_description": "Sufficient: Justifies a compatible picking strategy and routing or travel model for every retained design. Checks relevant aisle geometry, depot position, storage pattern, demand and equipment assumptions against each design.\n\nGood: Explains adaptations and interactions among picking, storage, layout and equipment, using case evidence to justify model inputs and any shared strategy.", "points": 0.8 }, "2": { "description": "Sufficient", "long_description": "Justifies a compatible picking strategy and routing or travel model for every retained design. Checks relevant aisle geometry, depot position, storage pattern, demand and equipment assumptions against each design.", "points": 0.6 }, "3": { "description": "Insufficient", "long_description": "Relevant choices are described, but a retained design lacks a compatible strategy or unsupported model assumptions invalidate the design rationale.", "points": 0.3 }, "4": { "description": "Missing", "long_description": "No relevant picking-method justification for retained designs is provided.", "points": 0.0 } } }, "19": { "description": "AS4-C5 - Quantitative Evaluation / Task 1", "long_description": "Credit toward the analytical score.\n\nImplemented feasible routes support correct, fair comparisons using appropriate measures of the picking-only effect.", "points": 1, "criterion_use_range": false, "ratings": { "0": { "description": "Excellent", "long_description": "Sufficient: Implements feasible route generation and reports correct baseline, proposal and change using defined measures and units. Keeps storage, layout and equipment fixed, matches demand, period and evaluation conditions, and reports resource changes. Makes calculations and the picking-only effect traceable.\n\nGood: Checks routes and calculations against an independent check or known result, and explains why the comparison supports the claimed picking effect.\n\nExcellent: Explains how uncertainty, proxies or solution-quality limits affect the comparison and which conclusions remain supported. Interprets available solver status, bounds or gaps when a solver is used.", "points": 1.0 }, "1": { "description": "Good", "long_description": "Sufficient: Implements feasible route generation and reports correct baseline, proposal and change using defined measures and units. Keeps storage, layout and equipment fixed, matches demand, period and evaluation conditions, and reports resource changes. Makes calculations and the picking-only effect traceable.\n\nGood: Checks routes and calculations against an independent check or known result, and explains why the comparison supports the claimed picking effect.", "points": 0.8 }, "2": { "description": "Sufficient", "long_description": "Implements feasible route generation and reports correct baseline, proposal and change using defined measures and units. Keeps storage, layout and equipment fixed, matches demand, period and evaluation conditions, and reports resource changes. Makes calculations and the picking-only effect traceable.", "points": 0.6 }, "3": { "description": "Insufficient", "long_description": "Relevant results are present, but route generation is absent or invalid, or calculation, comparison or attribution errors invalidate a central picking-only result.", "points": 0.3 }, "4": { "description": "Missing", "long_description": "No relevant numerical baseline/proposal comparison is provided.", "points": 0.0 } } }, "20": { "description": "AS4-C6 - Quantitative Evaluation / Task 2", "long_description": "Credit toward the analytical score.\n\nSuitable routing or travel models support correct, fair comparisons for each combination, with picking and combined design effects correctly attributed.", "points": 1, "criterion_use_range": false, "ratings": { "0": { "description": "Excellent", "long_description": "Sufficient: Uses suitable route generation or a travel model to report correct baseline, proposal and change for every retained design, with defined measures, units and resource settings. Matches demand, period and evaluation conditions. Uses a common within-design picking comparison where feasible; otherwise explains its infeasibility and reports the combined effect.\n\nGood: Checks calculations and model application against an independent check or known result, and explains why the comparisons support the attributed picking or combined effects.\n\nExcellent: Explains how uncertainty, approximation or solution-quality limits affect comparisons between designs and which conclusions remain supported. Interprets available solver status, bounds or gaps when a solver is used.", "points": 1.0 }, "1": { "description": "Good", "long_description": "Sufficient: Uses suitable route generation or a travel model to report correct baseline, proposal and change for every retained design, with defined measures, units and resource settings. Matches demand, period and evaluation conditions. Uses a common within-design picking comparison where feasible; otherwise explains its infeasibility and reports the combined effect.\n\nGood: Checks calculations and model application against an independent check or known result, and explains why the comparisons support the attributed picking or combined effects.", "points": 0.8 }, "2": { "description": "Sufficient", "long_description": "Uses suitable route generation or a travel model to report correct baseline, proposal and change for every retained design, with defined measures, units and resource settings. Matches demand, period and evaluation conditions. Uses a common within-design picking comparison where feasible; otherwise explains its infeasibility and reports the combined effect.", "points": 0.6 }, "3": { "description": "Insufficient", "long_description": "Relevant results are present, but a retained design is unevaluated or calculation, comparison, model-application or attribution errors invalidate a central result.", "points": 0.3 }, "4": { "description": "Missing", "long_description": "No relevant numerical evaluation of retained designs is provided.", "points": 0.0 } } }, "21": { "description": "AS4-C7 - Operational Feasibility / Task 1", "long_description": "Credit toward the analytical score.\n\nCapacity, access, labor, equipment, replenishment, and order completion are supported for the current warehouse; limitations are explicit.", "points": 1, "criterion_use_range": false, "ratings": { "0": { "description": "Excellent", "long_description": "Sufficient: Checks load capacity, access, labor and equipment availability, replenishment and order completion for the current warehouse, including handoffs or consolidation where relevant. Supports claimed operating conditions and states unresolved checks as limitations.\n\nGood: Uses dimensions, capacities, workload or timing evidence to justify the relevant checks and identifies implementation conditions for unresolved constraints.\n\nExcellent: Explains interactions and displaced workload at limiting resources, including the conditions needed to maintain feasible operation when demand or resources change.", "points": 1.0 }, "1": { "description": "Good", "long_description": "Sufficient: Checks load capacity, access, labor and equipment availability, replenishment and order completion for the current warehouse, including handoffs or consolidation where relevant. Supports claimed operating conditions and states unresolved checks as limitations.\n\nGood: Uses dimensions, capacities, workload or timing evidence to justify the relevant checks and identifies implementation conditions for unresolved constraints.", "points": 0.8 }, "2": { "description": "Sufficient", "long_description": "Checks load capacity, access, labor and equipment availability, replenishment and order completion for the current warehouse, including handoffs or consolidation where relevant. Supports claimed operating conditions and states unresolved checks as limitations.", "points": 0.6 }, "3": { "description": "Insufficient", "long_description": "Relevant checks are present, but an unsupported or violated capacity, access, resource or completion condition invalidates a central feasibility claim.", "points": 0.3 }, "4": { "description": "Missing", "long_description": "No relevant operational-feasibility evidence is provided.", "points": 0.0 } } }, "22": { "description": "AS4-C8 - Operational Feasibility / Task 2", "long_description": "Credit toward the analytical score.\n\nCapacity, access, resources, replenishment interfaces, handoffs, and order completion are supported for each retained design; limitations are explicit.", "points": 1, "criterion_use_range": false, "ratings": { "0": { "description": "Excellent", "long_description": "Sufficient: Checks load capacity, access, resources, replenishment interfaces and order completion for every retained design, including handoffs or consolidation where relevant. Supports claimed operating conditions and states unresolved checks as limitations.\n\nGood: Uses dimensions, capacities, workload or timing evidence to justify relevant checks for each design and identifies implementation conditions for unresolved constraints.\n\nExcellent: Explains interactions and displaced workload across the retained designs, identifying limiting interfaces and conditions needed as demand or resources change.", "points": 1.0 }, "1": { "description": "Good", "long_description": "Sufficient: Checks load capacity, access, resources, replenishment interfaces and order completion for every retained design, including handoffs or consolidation where relevant. Supports claimed operating conditions and states unresolved checks as limitations.\n\nGood: Uses dimensions, capacities, workload or timing evidence to justify relevant checks for each design and identifies implementation conditions for unresolved constraints.", "points": 0.8 }, "2": { "description": "Sufficient", "long_description": "Checks load capacity, access, resources, replenishment interfaces and order completion for every retained design, including handoffs or consolidation where relevant. Supports claimed operating conditions and states unresolved checks as limitations.", "points": 0.6 }, "3": { "description": "Insufficient", "long_description": "Relevant checks are present, but an unevaluated design or an unsupported or violated operating condition invalidates a central feasibility claim.", "points": 0.3 }, "4": { "description": "Missing", "long_description": "No relevant operational-feasibility evidence for retained designs is provided.", "points": 0.0 } } }, "23": { "description": "AS4-C9 - Decision Justification / Task 1", "long_description": "Credit toward the analytical score.\n\nThe recommendation explains picking-only benefits, resource trade-offs, limitations, and implementation conditions, using sensitivity results where relevant.", "points": 1, "criterion_use_range": false, "ratings": { "0": { "description": "Excellent", "long_description": "Sufficient: Supports a current-warehouse recommendation with the picking-only comparison, resource trade-offs, limitations and implementation conditions. Explains the sensitivity results relevant to that recommendation, or why the shared sensitivity does not affect it.\n\nGood: Explains why the recommendation follows from the evidence, how the consequential uncertainty examined affects it, and which implementation risks need monitoring.\n\nExcellent: Identifies conditions that could reverse the recommendation and prioritizes practical actions or further evidence according to their effect on the decision.", "points": 1.0 }, "1": { "description": "Good", "long_description": "Sufficient: Supports a current-warehouse recommendation with the picking-only comparison, resource trade-offs, limitations and implementation conditions. Explains the sensitivity results relevant to that recommendation, or why the shared sensitivity does not affect it.\n\nGood: Explains why the recommendation follows from the evidence, how the consequential uncertainty examined affects it, and which implementation risks need monitoring.", "points": 0.8 }, "2": { "description": "Sufficient", "long_description": "Supports a current-warehouse recommendation with the picking-only comparison, resource trade-offs, limitations and implementation conditions. Explains the sensitivity results relevant to that recommendation, or why the shared sensitivity does not affect it.", "points": 0.6 }, "3": { "description": "Insufficient", "long_description": "Relevant recommendation evidence is present, but unsupported benefit claims or omitted resource, uncertainty or implementation consequences invalidate the central recommendation.", "points": 0.3 }, "4": { "description": "Missing", "long_description": "No relevant current-warehouse recommendation is provided.", "points": 0.0 } } }, "24": { "description": "AS4-C10 - Decision Justification / Task 2", "long_description": "Credit toward the analytical score.\n\nThe recommendation explains combined design benefits, resource trade-offs, limitations, and implementation conditions, using sensitivity results where relevant.", "points": 1, "criterion_use_range": false, "ratings": { "0": { "description": "Excellent", "long_description": "Sufficient: Supports a recommendation across retained designs using combined performance, resource trade-offs, limitations and implementation conditions. Explains relevant sensitivity results and distinguishes supported design benefits from uncertain picking-only effects.\n\nGood: Explains the trade-offs behind selecting or rejecting retained designs, how the consequential uncertainty examined affects the preference, and which implementation risks need monitoring.\n\nExcellent: Identifies conditions that could reverse the preferred design and prioritizes practical actions or further evidence according to their effect on the decision.", "points": 1.0 }, "1": { "description": "Good", "long_description": "Sufficient: Supports a recommendation across retained designs using combined performance, resource trade-offs, limitations and implementation conditions. Explains relevant sensitivity results and distinguishes supported design benefits from uncertain picking-only effects.\n\nGood: Explains the trade-offs behind selecting or rejecting retained designs, how the consequential uncertainty examined affects the preference, and which implementation risks need monitoring.", "points": 0.8 }, "2": { "description": "Sufficient", "long_description": "Supports a recommendation across retained designs using combined performance, resource trade-offs, limitations and implementation conditions. Explains relevant sensitivity results and distinguishes supported design benefits from uncertain picking-only effects.", "points": 0.6 }, "3": { "description": "Insufficient", "long_description": "Relevant recommendation evidence is present, but an omitted retained design or unsupported benefit, uncertainty or implementation claims invalidate the central recommendation.", "points": 0.3 }, "4": { "description": "Missing", "long_description": "No relevant recommendation across retained designs is provided.", "points": 0.0 } } }, "25": { "description": "AS5-C1 - Fair Comparison", "long_description": "Credit toward the analytical score.\n\nProduct-assignment, layout, and picking interventions are compared using consistent baselines, demand, units, and constraints.", "points": 2, "criterion_use_range": false, "ratings": { "0": { "description": "Excellent", "long_description": "Sufficient: Defines the observed baseline, isolated interventions and retained combinations with compatible layout, product assignment and picking rules. Uses matched populations, workload, periods, units and evaluation assumptions, states changed resources and constraints, and records feasibility, exclusions and failed or unavailable evaluations distinctly from zero results.\n\nGood: Explains why the comparison settings support the intended contrasts and how adaptations to a changed design preserve, or limit, comparability.\n\nExcellent: Uses checks or contrasting evaluations to establish which conclusions survive remaining comparability limits and identifies the evidence needed for unresolved contrasts.", "points": 2.0 }, "1": { "description": "Good", "long_description": "Sufficient: Defines the observed baseline, isolated interventions and retained combinations with compatible layout, product assignment and picking rules. Uses matched populations, workload, periods, units and evaluation assumptions, states changed resources and constraints, and records feasibility, exclusions and failed or unavailable evaluations distinctly from zero results.\n\nGood: Explains why the comparison settings support the intended contrasts and how adaptations to a changed design preserve, or limit, comparability.", "points": 1.6 }, "2": { "description": "Sufficient", "long_description": "Defines the observed baseline, isolated interventions and retained combinations with compatible layout, product assignment and picking rules. Uses matched populations, workload, periods, units and evaluation assumptions, states changed resources and constraints, and records feasibility, exclusions and failed or unavailable evaluations distinctly from zero results.", "points": 1.2 }, "3": { "description": "Insufficient", "long_description": "Relevant scenarios are present, but an altered baseline, incompatible configuration, unmatched comparison or omitted evaluation status invalidates a central contrast.", "points": 0.6 }, "4": { "description": "Missing", "long_description": "No relevant scenario definitions or baseline comparison evidence is provided.", "points": 0.0 } } }, "26": { "description": "AS5-C2 - Performance Trade-Offs", "long_description": "Credit toward the analytical score.\n\nEffects on cost, throughput, space, service, workload, and risk are quantified where the evidence permits.", "points": 2, "criterion_use_range": false, "ratings": { "0": { "description": "Excellent", "long_description": "Sufficient: Reports correct baseline and scenario values, changes, units and resource requirements for the relevant measures, quantifying consequences where evidence permits. Explains unexpected outcomes as far as the evidence allows, separates supported explanations from hypotheses, and suggests relevant changes or further experiments. Distinguishes estimates, observations and unavailable measures.\n\nGood: Explains gains and losses together, identifies consequential resource trade-offs and justifies the selected measures and any proxies.\n\nExcellent: Identifies which trade-offs determine the preferred option under competing objectives and explains how unmeasured consequences limit the performance ranking.", "points": 2.0 }, "1": { "description": "Good", "long_description": "Sufficient: Reports correct baseline and scenario values, changes, units and resource requirements for the relevant measures, quantifying consequences where evidence permits. Explains unexpected outcomes as far as the evidence allows, separates supported explanations from hypotheses, and suggests relevant changes or further experiments. Distinguishes estimates, observations and unavailable measures.\n\nGood: Explains gains and losses together, identifies consequential resource trade-offs and justifies the selected measures and any proxies.", "points": 1.6 }, "2": { "description": "Sufficient", "long_description": "Reports correct baseline and scenario values, changes, units and resource requirements for the relevant measures, quantifying consequences where evidence permits. Explains unexpected outcomes as far as the evidence allows, separates supported explanations from hypotheses, and suggests relevant changes or further experiments. Distinguishes estimates, observations and unavailable measures.", "points": 1.2 }, "3": { "description": "Insufficient", "long_description": "Relevant results are present, but incorrect quantities, misleading measures or omitted consequential resource changes invalidate a central performance claim.", "points": 0.6 }, "4": { "description": "Missing", "long_description": "No relevant performance or resource comparison is provided.", "points": 0.0 } } }, "27": { "description": "AS5-C3 - System Interactions", "long_description": "Credit toward the analytical score.\n\nComplementarities, conflicts, and shifted burdens across the three interventions are identified.", "points": 2, "criterion_use_range": false, "ratings": { "0": { "description": "Excellent", "long_description": "Sufficient: Uses contrasts that change one decision while holding the others fixed to distinguish isolated and combined effects where compatible scenarios permit. Explains complementarities, conflicts and shifted burdens among layout, product assignment and picking, separating supported explanations from hypotheses and stating limits when effects cannot be isolated.\n\nGood: Supports the proposed interaction mechanisms with relevant contrasts or operating evidence, tracing effects on replenishment, capacity, labor, equipment or service as applicable.\n\nExcellent: Explains how an intervention's value changes or remains stable across design settings, and how the observed interaction, compatibility constraint or absence of detected interaction informs the useful combination.", "points": 2.0 }, "1": { "description": "Good", "long_description": "Sufficient: Uses contrasts that change one decision while holding the others fixed to distinguish isolated and combined effects where compatible scenarios permit. Explains complementarities, conflicts and shifted burdens among layout, product assignment and picking, separating supported explanations from hypotheses and stating limits when effects cannot be isolated.\n\nGood: Supports the proposed interaction mechanisms with relevant contrasts or operating evidence, tracing effects on replenishment, capacity, labor, equipment or service as applicable.", "points": 1.6 }, "2": { "description": "Sufficient", "long_description": "Uses contrasts that change one decision while holding the others fixed to distinguish isolated and combined effects where compatible scenarios permit. Explains complementarities, conflicts and shifted burdens among layout, product assignment and picking, separating supported explanations from hypotheses and stating limits when effects cannot be isolated.", "points": 1.2 }, "3": { "description": "Insufficient", "long_description": "Relevant interaction evidence is present, but unsupported attribution, incompatible contrasts or ignored shifted burdens invalidate a central explanation of combined effects.", "points": 0.6 }, "4": { "description": "Missing", "long_description": "No relevant analysis of interactions or combined effects is provided.", "points": 0.0 } } }, "28": { "description": "AS5-C4 - Uncertainty and Robustness", "long_description": "Credit toward the analytical score.\n\nMaterial assumptions, sensitivities, data limitations, and implementation risks are tested or bounded.", "points": 2, "criterion_use_range": false, "ratings": { "0": { "description": "Excellent", "long_description": "Sufficient: Identifies material assumptions, missing data and implementation risks, and tests consequential uncertainty through sensitivity analysis or defensible bounds. Explains how the results affect the recommendation and which conclusions remain uncertain.\n\nGood: Justifies the uncertainties and ranges examined, explains changes in scenario ranking or feasibility, and identifies important risks not covered by the analysis.\n\nExcellent: Establishes conditions or decision thresholds under which the recommendation remains supported or changes, and prioritizes further evidence by its likely effect on the decision.", "points": 2.0 }, "1": { "description": "Good", "long_description": "Sufficient: Identifies material assumptions, missing data and implementation risks, and tests consequential uncertainty through sensitivity analysis or defensible bounds. Explains how the results affect the recommendation and which conclusions remain uncertain.\n\nGood: Justifies the uncertainties and ranges examined, explains changes in scenario ranking or feasibility, and identifies important risks not covered by the analysis.", "points": 1.6 }, "2": { "description": "Sufficient", "long_description": "Identifies material assumptions, missing data and implementation risks, and tests consequential uncertainty through sensitivity analysis or defensible bounds. Explains how the results affect the recommendation and which conclusions remain uncertain.", "points": 1.2 }, "3": { "description": "Insufficient", "long_description": "Relevant limitations are stated, but a consequential uncertainty is left untested and unbounded, or invalid sensitivity reasoning undermines a central robustness claim.", "points": 0.6 }, "4": { "description": "Missing", "long_description": "No relevant uncertainty, sensitivity or risk evidence is provided.", "points": 0.0 } } }, "29": { "description": "AS5-C5 - Management Synthesis", "long_description": "Credit toward the analytical score.\n\nThe report provides a concise, prioritized course of action with conditions, sequencing, and monitoring indicators.", "points": 2, "criterion_use_range": false, "ratings": { "0": { "description": "Excellent", "long_description": "Sufficient: Gives a concise, prioritized course of action supported by the evaluated performance, resource and feasibility evidence. States implementation conditions, a workable sequence and monitoring indicators, limiting best-solution claims to the evaluated alternatives and assumptions.\n\nGood: Explains why the preferred course balances the main trade-offs, connects sequencing to design dependencies and identifies what management should do if key conditions are not met.\n\nExcellent: Uses decision triggers to connect monitoring with continuation, adaptation or rejection, and prioritizes actions or further evidence according to their decision consequences.", "points": 2.0 }, "1": { "description": "Good", "long_description": "Sufficient: Gives a concise, prioritized course of action supported by the evaluated performance, resource and feasibility evidence. States implementation conditions, a workable sequence and monitoring indicators, limiting best-solution claims to the evaluated alternatives and assumptions.\n\nGood: Explains why the preferred course balances the main trade-offs, connects sequencing to design dependencies and identifies what management should do if key conditions are not met.", "points": 1.6 }, "2": { "description": "Sufficient", "long_description": "Gives a concise, prioritized course of action supported by the evaluated performance, resource and feasibility evidence. States implementation conditions, a workable sequence and monitoring indicators, limiting best-solution claims to the evaluated alternatives and assumptions.", "points": 1.2 }, "3": { "description": "Insufficient", "long_description": "Relevant advice is present, but unsupported selection, infeasible implementation or missing priorities and conditions prevent a defensible course of action.", "points": 0.6 }, "4": { "description": "Missing", "long_description": "No relevant management recommendation is provided.", "points": 0.0 } } }, "30": { "description": "QLT-C1 - Analysis Execution", "long_description": "Deduction severity; subtract once under the overall cap.\n\nOne documented entry point runs from the original inputs in a clean folder and saves the required outputs. Setup, dependencies, scenario settings, and applicable seeds are recorded.", "points": 2, "criterion_use_range": false, "ratings": { "0": { "description": "Meets Requirements", "long_description": "The documented entry point runs from original inputs in a clean project folder and saves the required evidence automatically. Setup, dependencies, scenario definitions, settings and applicable seeds are supplied; notebooks execute from a fresh kernel without hidden state.", "points": 0.0 }, "1": { "description": "Needs Correction", "long_description": "A specific, documented setup or execution correction restores the required run, or some evidence needs manual generation. The affected step and correction are identifiable without reconstructing missing analysis.", "points": 1.0 }, "2": { "description": "Substantial Problem", "long_description": "Missing or unusable code, inputs, dependencies or execution steps prevent generation of required evidence, and an identifiable limited correction has not restored it. Reconstructing missing analysis is one example of this material blockage.", "points": 2.0 } } }, "31": { "description": "QLT-C2 - Outputs and PDF", "long_description": "Deduction severity; subtract once under the overall cap.\n\nThe PDF matches the submitted outputs and uses consistent scenario definitions and names.", "points": 1, "criterion_use_range": false, "ratings": { "0": { "description": "Meets Requirements", "long_description": "Submitted outputs can be matched to the PDF using consistent scenario definitions, names and versions. Reported values, tables and charts agree with their saved evidence, allowing stated rounding and justified numerical variation.", "points": 0.0 }, "1": { "description": "Needs Correction", "long_description": "A limited stale asset, version or naming mismatch needs correction, but the intended scenario and result can be established reliably from the submitted evidence.", "points": 0.5 }, "2": { "description": "Substantial Problem", "long_description": "Material version, scenario or result mismatches prevent a reliable match between the submitted outputs and the PDF.", "points": 1.0 } } }, "32": { "description": "QLT-C3 - Report Sources", "long_description": "Deduction severity; subtract once under the overall cap.\n\nThe supplied LaTeX sources, bibliography, assets, and instructions reproduce the submitted PDF.", "points": 1, "criterion_use_range": false, "ratings": { "0": { "description": "Meets Requirements", "long_description": "The complete supplied LaTeX project, bibliography, assets and instructions compile to a report consistent with the submitted PDF in content, results and references.", "points": 0.0 }, "1": { "description": "Needs Correction", "long_description": "A specific, documented instruction or asset correction restores compilation of the report. The submitted sources establish the intended content without reconstructing missing sections or material evidence.", "points": 0.5 }, "2": { "description": "Substantial Problem", "long_description": "Missing or unusable report sources, bibliography or material assets, or unresolved compilation failures, prevent reproduction of the submitted report content.", "points": 1.0 } } }, "33": { "description": "QLT-C4 - Readability and Navigation", "long_description": "Deduction severity; subtract once under the overall cap.\n\nStructure, formatting, terminology, and cross-references make the evidence easy to locate and inspect.", "points": 1, "criterion_use_range": false, "ratings": { "0": { "description": "Meets Requirements", "long_description": "Structure, formatting, terminology and cross-references let readers locate and inspect the report evidence. Tables, charts and their associated explanations remain readable at normal viewing size.", "points": 0.0 }, "1": { "description": "Needs Correction", "long_description": "Recurring presentation or navigation problems hinder inspection of identifiable evidence, although that evidence can still be located and interpreted.", "points": 0.5 }, "2": { "description": "Substantial Problem", "long_description": "Substantial presentation or navigation problems hinder reliable inspection of material report evidence, including a consequential table, figure or explanation.", "points": 1.0 } } }, "34": { "description": "REP-C1 - Analysis Execution", "long_description": "Unscored verification outcome.", "points": 0, "criterion_use_range": false, "ratings": { "0": { "description": "Reproduced", "long_description": "Record the original command, environment and inputs, scenario settings and generated outputs. The check succeeds with the submitted version.", "points": 0.0 }, "1": { "description": "Reproduced After a Documented Correction", "long_description": "Record the original command, environment and inputs, scenario settings and generated outputs. The check succeeds after the exact correction recorded in the comment.", "points": 0.0 }, "2": { "description": "Failed", "long_description": "Record the original command, environment and inputs, scenario settings and generated outputs. The attempted check fails; record reproducible steps and the error or discrepancy.", "points": 0.0 }, "3": { "description": "Not Checked", "long_description": "Record the original command, environment and inputs, scenario settings and generated outputs. The check was not performed; state why and what remains unverified.", "points": 0.0 } } }, "35": { "description": "REP-C2 - Outputs and PDF", "long_description": "Unscored verification outcome.", "points": 0, "criterion_use_range": false, "ratings": { "0": { "description": "Reproduced", "long_description": "Record baseline and alternative output identifiers, compared values, units and the report locations checked. The check succeeds with the submitted version.", "points": 0.0 }, "1": { "description": "Reproduced After a Documented Correction", "long_description": "Record baseline and alternative output identifiers, compared values, units and the report locations checked. The check succeeds after the exact correction recorded in the comment.", "points": 0.0 }, "2": { "description": "Failed", "long_description": "Record baseline and alternative output identifiers, compared values, units and the report locations checked. The attempted check fails; record reproducible steps and the error or discrepancy.", "points": 0.0 }, "3": { "description": "Not Checked", "long_description": "Record baseline and alternative output identifiers, compared values, units and the report locations checked. The check was not performed; state why and what remains unverified.", "points": 0.0 } } }, "36": { "description": "REP-C3 - Report Compilation", "long_description": "Unscored verification outcome.", "points": 0, "criterion_use_range": false, "ratings": { "0": { "description": "Reproduced", "long_description": "Record the documented compilation command, available sources and comparison with the submitted PDF. The check succeeds with the submitted version.", "points": 0.0 }, "1": { "description": "Reproduced After a Documented Correction", "long_description": "Record the documented compilation command, available sources and comparison with the submitted PDF. The check succeeds after the exact correction recorded in the comment.", "points": 0.0 }, "2": { "description": "Failed", "long_description": "Record the documented compilation command, available sources and comparison with the submitted PDF. The attempted check fails; record reproducible steps and the error or discrepancy.", "points": 0.0 }, "3": { "description": "Not Checked", "long_description": "Record the documented compilation command, available sources and comparison with the submitted PDF. The check was not performed; state why and what remains unverified.", "points": 0.0 } } } } }, "rubric_association": { "use_for_grading": false, "hide_score_total": true, "purpose": "grading" } }