My research desk · Wednesday, October 15 Live surface

Hey, Alex — here's where you are today.

Final due date: Friday, November 14. You're on pace. Two things to move today. Try it: drag a card between columns

This week's kanban

Drag cards between columns. Add your own. Only you see this board.

Reverse Timeline snapshot

Click a milestone to mark it done.

Latest journal entry

Private. Not graded.

Sources — quick view

Two sources logged. One flagged.

Want to see the whole app?

Every link on the left maps to a real student surface. The ones tagged Live are clickable now. Preview tags show what's fully wired in early access. If you want your teacher to run a full pilot with your class, ask them to request teacher demo access.

Back to For Students Teacher: Request Demo

Reverse Timeline Live surface

Every milestone, planned backward from the due date.

Click a milestone to mark it done. The current step turns coral; done steps go green.

In the real app, you pick your due date and the workspace generates the checkpoints. Your teacher can lock certain ones so they stay aligned to the class rubric.

Annotated bibliography Live surface

Score every source. Weak ones get flagged.

Move the sliders — the verdict updates live. Add a new source below.

Framework: RAVEN

Add a new source

Title Type & details Your annotation

Research journal Live surface

Your thinking space. Private.

Your teacher does not read your journal. Write questions, false starts, whatever you need to think out loud.

🔒 Entries stay in your browser only in this demo. In the real app, they're encrypted and only visible to you.

Past entries

Rubric & feedback Live surface

The rubric sits next to your work, not at the end of it.

You're on IRR §2 — Perspectives. Below is the exact rubric row that grades it.

Row 3 · Multiple perspectives

Emerging (1–2)	Presents a single perspective, or lists perspectives without connecting them.

Proficient (3–4)	Identifies multiple perspectives and describes how each frames the issue.

Advanced (5–6) — aim here	Analyzes tensions between perspectives and shows how they change the argument.

The rubric row you see is picked by your teacher for this assignment. You see the same rows when you self-assess before turning it in.

Recent teacher note

Ms. Patel · Mon 3:12 pm

Alex — your topic-lock is tight. Push on the "access vs. affordability" distinction in your perspectives map; that's the seam.

PT1 · Team workspace Preview

Team of 3–5 Shared with your teammates + teacher

One workspace for the whole PT1 team.

Every PT1 team gets a shared space with a team name, working problem statement, member list, and a shared source library. Your teacher can see it. Nobody outside the team can.

What lives here

Team name + working problem statement
Member roster with roles (drafts, sources, design, presentation)
Shared team library and TMP plan
Teacher-visible activity feed

Why it matters The unit of work for PT1 is the team. This workspace is where the team's problem statement, sources, and TMP plan all connect back to the IRR and TMP rubric rows.

PT1 · Problem & lens picker Preview

IRR Row 1 Context & significance

Turn a topic into a problem — and tag the lens.

You write a working problem statement, then tag it with one or more of the eight official AP Seminar lenses. If your statement is one or two words ("pollution," "AI"), the workspace warns you that the rubric distinguishes a topic from a problem.

The eight AP Seminar lenses

Cultural / Social

Artistic / Philosophical

Political / Historical

Environmental

Economic

Scientific

Futuristic

Ethical

Rubric tie-in · IRR Row 1 A team that starts narrow and lens-tagged is set up to hit Row 1 at the 6-point band. "Pollution" scores a 2. "Air quality in South Side Chicago schools during construction booms" doesn't.

PT1 · Stakeholders map Preview

IRR Row 4 Understand & analyze perspective

Who's affected — and how does each of them see the problem?

You map the stakeholders touched by the problem: population, place, institution. For each stakeholder, you note the perspective they'd bring, and which sources speak from that vantage. This maps directly onto the IRR's "multiple perspectives" requirement.

Each stakeholder card asks

Who are they? (population, place, institution)
What perspective do they bring on the problem?
Which sources in your library speak from this vantage?
Where do their perspectives create tension with another stakeholder's?

Rubric tie-in · IRR Row 4 "Multiple perspectives" isn't just "list two viewpoints." Row 4 rewards analysis of the tensions between them — which is exactly what this map surfaces.

PT1 · Shared source library Preview

Team-level Individual annotations

Team pools sources. You annotate the ones you use.

The team library is shared. Every source has a required credibility self-check the first person to add it fills out. Each teammate then picks the subset that goes into their individual annotated bibliography, with their own annotation attached.

Every source captures

Full citation (auto-formatted APA 7 or MLA 9)
Type · scholarly, government, journalism, blog, primary…
Lens(es) it addresses
Credibility self-check (RAVEN / SIFT / CRAAP)
Which teammate added it, and which IRR(s) will use it

Rubric tie-in · IRR Row 3 Row 3 rewards "evaluation of credibility of the sources and selection of relevant evidence." A shared library where credibility is a required field stops a Medium post from sitting next to a JSTOR paper unmarked.

PT1 · IRR draft editor Preview

1200 words Individual · counts for 30 points

Rubric panel docked to your draft, always.

Rich-text editor on the left, the six IRR rubric rows on the right. Click any row to see the exact language and exemplar phrasing. In-line hints catch common issues — unattributed 120-word stretches, missing citations, perspectives listed but not compared.

What the rubric panel does

Six rubric rows always visible while drafting
Click a row for exact language and exemplar phrasing
Section-aware hints (e.g., "IRR §2 — you're writing perspectives; want to link a stakeholder card?")
Attributive-phrase check flags long unattributed stretches
Autosave, comment threads with teammates + teacher

Where perspectives land The IRR editor is where your stakeholders map, source annotations, and lens tags actually get pulled into prose. It's the heart of the product.

PT1 · TMP plan & rehearsal Preview

Team · 8–10 min 24 points

Argument map → storyboard → rehearsal log.

Three sub-tools on the TMP plan: (1) a shared argument map converging on the team's proposed solution, (2) a slide-by-slide storyboard tagged to argument nodes, and (3) a rehearsal log where each teammate uploads a self-recorded practice run and self-scores against TMP Row 3.

Rehearsal log checklist (TMP Row 3)

Eye contact
Vocal variety
Pacing
Gestures
Energy
Support material integration
Attribution / citation aloud

Rubric tie-in · TMP Row 3 The rubric names seven techniques; the log makes each one a checkbox tied to a specific rehearsal recording. Self-assess before your teacher scores.

PT1 · Solutions evaluator Preview

TMP Row 2 Evaluate solutions

Pros, cons, and the limits of your own solution.

A structured two-column table: list at least two alternative solutions, weigh their pros and cons, then articulate the specific limitations and implications of your team's proposed solution. Skipping it costs Row 2 points; filling it out cleanly locks in at least 2.

Every card asks

What is the alternative solution?
What problem does it aim to solve?
Two evidence-backed pros
Two evidence-backed cons
Why did your team choose differently?

Rubric tie-in · TMP Row 2 Row 2 is binary at the top (4 points = both alternatives and limitations addressed with evidence). A structured form makes it hard to ship without earning at least 2.

PT1 · Oral defense prep Preview

Team · after presentation Scored separately

The questions College Board won't tell you — but you can rehearse.

A prep board that reflects on individual research, group process, and how the argument might change with a new perspective. Teammates draft answers, teachers can drop practice questions, and the whole team can rehearse before defense day.

Prompt categories

Reflect on your individual research process
Reflect on your group's decision-making
How would a new lens or stakeholder change the argument?
What would you cut or expand with 5 more minutes?
Teacher-authored practice questions

Why it matters Most teams under-prepare for the oral defense because College Board doesn't release questions. A structured prep board turns improvisation into rehearsal.

PT2 · Solo workspace Preview

Individual Stimulus → IWA → IMP

PT2 is yours. No team, no shared library.

Every PT2 surface is individual: the stimulus packet workspace, the research question lab, the IWA editor, and the IMP plan. Your teacher can see your progress and comment — no one else can.

PT2 by the numbers

Stimulus packet released by College Board in early January
IWA: ~2000 words, 48 points
IMP: 6–8 minutes with slides, plus oral defense
All individual — no shared workspace

Privacy note PT2 work is not visible to classmates. Journal entries, drafts, and question-lab notes stay between you and your teacher.

PT2 · Stimulus packet workspace Preview

IWA Row 1 Stimulus + off-topic rule

Map connections across stimuli — before you draft a word.

Upload the College Board packet (5–7 short texts). For each stimulus you note the central claim, the reasoning move, and the most useful quote. Then you draw connections across at least two stimuli. That mapping is what makes your IWA impossible to score off-topic.

For each stimulus, you capture

Central claim (in your words)
Reasoning move (analogy, evidence, appeal, counter)
Most important quote or data point
Which other stimulus does this connect to, and how?

The IWA off-topic rule IWA responses "not in any way related to a theme connecting at least two of the stimulus materials" score 0. This tool kills the most common avoidable zero on the whole exam.

PT2 · Research question lab Preview

IWA Row 2 Argument, not report

The IWA is an argument. Your question has to allow one.

You draft a research question and answer four prompts — what position you'll argue, what a counter-position would say, what evidence you'll need, and which stimuli you're building from. Common failure modes ("How does X affect Y?" with no defensible answer) surface as warnings.

Four prompts you answer

What is the question?
What position will you argue?
What would a counter-position say?
Which stimuli and outside sources will you use?

Why this exists An IWA is an argument, not a report. Descriptive questions ("How does X affect Y?") produce descriptive papers, which cap at Proficient. This lab makes the failure mode visible early.

PT2 · IWA draft editor Preview

2000 words Individual · 48 points

Same editor as IRR — different rubric panel.

Rich-text draft on the left, IWA rubric panel on the right. The IWA rows differ from the IRR (Stimulus, Context, Perspective, Argument, Evidence, Conventions, Communication), and the editor swaps in section-aware hints that mirror the IWA scoring guidelines.

IWA-specific hints

Stimulus attribution tracker (at least two stimuli cited)
Counter-perspective check — did you engage a real objection?
Evidence-per-claim ratio surfacing under-supported paragraphs
Encyclopedia / general-reference warning if you cite one

Same shape, different rubric If you've used the IRR editor, the IWA editor feels identical. Only the docked rubric panel changes.

PT2 · IMP plan & slides Preview

Individual · 6–8 min Plus oral defense

Your IWA argument, condensed for six minutes.

Slide-by-slide storyboard tied to your IWA argument. Each slide pulls in one node from the argument and asks you to name the takeaway aloud. A rehearsal log — same shape as TMP's — helps you time and self-score the delivery before defense day.

Each slide card asks

Which argument node is this slide?
What's the visual — data, quote, image, model?
What are you saying aloud (script or bullets)?
Is this slide within your time budget?

Ties back to IWA If your IWA argument is strong, the IMP is a compression exercise, not a rewrite. The tool keeps them in lockstep.

Peer feedback Preview

Teammates + teacher Async, no public comments

Comments tied to rubric rows — not just "nice job."

Inside the IRR/IWA editor, teammates and your teacher can leave threaded comments anchored to a paragraph AND a rubric row. Peer feedback on TMP rehearsals uses the same structure — comments attach to a timestamp on the recording and a Row 3 technique.

Peer feedback rules

Only your teammates and teacher can comment (never the whole class)
Every comment must be anchored to a paragraph + rubric row
Threaded replies, resolve state, and mention support
TMP rehearsals get timestamp-anchored comments on the recording
Teacher can require peer review before submission

Why anchored to rubric rows "This paragraph is confusing" is not actionable. "Row 4 — the perspectives aren't in tension yet" is. Anchoring turns peer comments into revision moves.

My contributions Preview

Group-project defense Auto-logged

Your work in a group project — visible, not guessed at.

Every action you take that's tied to a team deliverable — a source added to the library, a paragraph drafted in the TMP script, a slide storyboarded, a rehearsal recorded — gets logged as a Contribution Receipt. When your teacher grades TMP, individual work isn't invisible.

What gets logged

Sources added or annotated in the shared library
Drafts and revisions on team-shared documents
Slides storyboarded or updated
Rehearsals recorded and self-scored
Peer feedback given
Downloadable summary at end of project

Why it matters "I did most of the work" is a hard argument. A timestamped log turns individual effort into evidence — for your teacher, and for you.

Credibility lab Preview

Practice mode Same scoring as biblio

Practice source evaluation without touching your bibliography.

A sandbox with a rotating set of teacher-curated example sources. Score each one against RAVEN, SIFT, or CRAAP; compare your verdict to your teacher's. Repeat until the framework becomes muscle memory.

Rubric explorer Preview

Reference Every row · PT1 + PT2

All rubric rows in one place — outside the draft.

Browse every row across IRR (6 rows / 30 pts), TMP (5 rows / 24 pts), IWA (7 rows / 48 pts), and IMP. See the paraphrased scoring language, the exemplar phrasing, and (with teacher consent) anonymized past student examples of what each band looks like in practice.

Resource library Preview

Reference Curated · not scraped

The handbooks and how-tos you actually need.

College Board's Course and Exam Description linked, the annotated bibliography guide, RAVEN/SIFT/CRAAP walkthroughs, MLA 9 and APA 7 quick-references, sample IRRs and IWAs at each rubric band (with teacher permission), and the class-specific resources your teacher pins.