Associate Name: Liam McDermott
Main Advisor and OP Reviewer: Jennifer Dauksha-English

Output Packet #:  	2	Year: Capstone
Date Submitted: January 11th
Date Reviewed: February 1st
Mark: 77
Grade: B
Time Spent on Review: 3.75 hrs

Liam,

Great OP - my favorite so far!!

My review is broken into these sections:
1. Evaluation Form 
2. Comments Per Section

Required next step: 
- Re-upload your self evaluation - the file is corrupt. 
- Take my feedback and add some of the suggestions to OP 4 and OP 5.

Recommended next step:
- Consider Core Report upgrade.

I respect your integrity in managing your pathway. I'm glad to be your advisor!

Cheers,
Jennifer

OP REVIEW-------------------------

1. EVALUATION FORM-------------------- 
(attached)

2. COMMENTS PER SECTION---------------
Commentary
- On Page 1 - Great overview of Gaia U. and pathway. I like the OP overview. Good mention of word count context. Awesome that you added the X-mind map. I think the table of contents would look better if you added some sentence spaces or indentations. Good note on audience. You have shared limited context on navigation. Perhaps a bit more direction explaining media?
- On Page 2 - I like that you added a second commentary page, separate from landing page, to overview OP design. The page is about the OP, not the project, so the life context needs to be better integrated into OP I think. Leverage on people care a real hinge point! When you share the note from the LIPD, I’m unclear how much of this OP stayed in alignment with your original intentions. These were the ideal outcomes then? How does that compare to now? You say the design process is elusive. You spend more time talking about the concept of design rather than what you actually did. I do really like the use of NVC (Observation, Need, Feeling, Request)! The overview of goals and OP management is well written though limited in details.  When you share the outcomes in relation to goals, how about providing specific examples? I like how you responded to the various feedback points I raised.
- On final page (directors cut) - I like the image of professional hats you wear. You add a section on applied permaculture design. In that first sentence you mention a specialization. I strongly suggest you explain what specialization means, and define the term applied permaculture. This section seems fragmented without more context. Under LIPD reflection, I’m really looking for more trackable data. Great that you added something on project management, leadership and cooperation. Still want to know what tools you’re specifically utilizing.  A book called Troilus and Cressida - what’s that? I really felt that this process tool reflection was missing in past OPs. Nice timeline! Great reflection on replicability, however it would help if you provide direct examples. Good use of 4 AL Questions. Skill flex assessment and Permaculture principles sections both need an introductory sentence explaining why they are included and context about significance. Feels fragmented. Yes on the Metric Chart - I want to see more of this in your OP 4 and 5.

Core Report
- The abstract is well written, summarizing intent, process and key outcomes. Good overall personal context. Great that you specified answers to who, what, etc… and I especially want to praise you for so solidly articulating the field. I like how you added your Permaculture perspective to weave in your thematic. Also, I’m glad to see your note on contribution (adding value) and dissemination. The only bit that’s missing is a deeper assessment and comparison of your experience and the work of others. You mention the work of 9 others but provide no comparison, critique or expansion on their work. I’d like to see this in your OP 4.
- On Design - The entire section on design needs an introduction to ‘why design’, ‘what are goals and why did you set them’ and ‘ a note on how you’re evolving as a designer. I like the goals articulation and design model through reflections, but this section doesn’t feel holistic, integrative or cumulative. And you go into very minimal description of the model chart that you indicate using. Please expand in your OP 4.
- Main CR page - I know i gave you feedback on this already… and honestly I’m still not entirely satisfied with the changes that you made, however I would like to not hold you up and will just accept that you’ve met the requirements overall. Please remember that the Core Report needs to stand alone as a document, media or article that would be viewable by the public. This particular page just doesn’t meet that need for me. I’m noting that you followed my advice and added a summary about all your supporting evidence, however take a step back and ask yourself if this page flows together with context and integration? Firstly, this page needs an introduction. Secondly, some of these nuggets need an introductory statement. Thirdly, there needs to be an introduction and conclusion that ties it all together. Lastly, though you provided summaries, I wanted more of a narrative with short examples that then link to supporting evidence. Finally, I wonder if the 5 P’s is not more something like commentary than core reflection on the project? I’m being rather stern with these critique’s to push you as an Advisor, as much as an Associate. Also note that there’s an extra text box in the top right.

Supporting Evidence
- Fantastic annotated reousrce review. Great statements that make each resource relevant. I like that you added peer support on this page.
- I appreciate that you included a note to reader overviewing your supporting materials.
- Stellar support that is applicable to others!! This is fantastic. Thank you for taking the time to produce all of these tools, resources and best practices.
- Nice! Its brilliant that you included a glossary!!
- This is by far one of the best supporting evidence sections I’ve seen in an OP. Well done.