# Workflow 07 — The final submission

**When:** weeks 9–10 and finals week (exact date on Canvas). **Feeds:** the **final submission** (30%): *all components integrated, plus attachments*, 2000–3000 words (shorter for 4 or 3 units; see the overview).

## Goal

Turn your proposal, your implementation milestone, and the feedback you've received into **one integrated argument**, with claims that match your evidence.

## You produce

- A 2000–3000-word write-up (or the shorter length for your units).
- Attachments as relevant: code, data, a slide deck, an appendix. Any reasonable format works, as long as the teaching team can open it without having to request access.
- An **AI-use note** (`docs/polisci158-ai-use-and-disclosure.md`).

### A default structure (adapt it to your kind of project)

| Section | Contains | Comes from |
|---|---|---|
| Introduction | Puzzle, question, your answer in 2–3 sentences, why it matters | Proposal, panel takeaway |
| Background / argument | What we know, and your mechanism, argument, or criteria | Workflows 01, 03, 04 |
| Design / approach | Unit, sources, or method | Workflow 03, implementation milestone |
| Findings / the argument in action | What you found or argued | Implementation milestone, plus later work |
| Limits and rivals | What your project can't show; the strongest objection, answered | Workflows 03, 05 |
| Conclusion | What it means, for whom, and what to watch | Panel feedback |

Argumentative projects: organize around your criteria and the strongest objection.

## Steps

The write-up you submit must be in your own words. AI can help with preliminary and intermediate output, such as a plan, a rough draft or a review, but you are responsible for every word you submit. Anything it restyles or rewrites that you keep must be disclosed.

1. **With AI.** Explore ways to organize your material:

   ```
   Here is my implementation milestone, my main findings, and the feedback I received.
   Suggest 2 different ways to organize a 2000-3000-word final write-up around my central claim,
   as a list of section headings with one line each. Do not write any of the text.
   ```

2. **You decide.** Settle the outline. Under each heading, write 2–4 bullets on what goes there, and give every piece of evidence a section. Nothing should be left without a home.
3. **You.** Draft section by section, in your own words. Start with the section you know best, and write the introduction last. Argue, don't summarize: every paragraph should advance *your* claim. Report what the evidence shows before you say what it means. Go through your peer reviews and panel Q&A as you draft, and address the points that matter.
4. **With AI.** Review the full draft in three passes:

   ```
   You are a reviewer for an undergraduate final project in a course on AI and politics.
   Here is my draft. Do not rewrite it. Review it in three passes and report findings for each:
   1. Argument and evidence: is the central claim stated early and served by every section?
      List my 5 most important claims, and for each, compare the strength of the claim with the strength
      of the evidence. Flag overclaiming AND underclaiming.
   2. Structure and clarity: does the reader get what they need when they need it?
      Are terms used consistently?
   3. Claims and limits: what limitations or rival explanations have I left out?
      Does my introduction promise more than my conclusion delivers?
   Finish with a prioritized list of the 5 most important revisions.
   ```

5. **You decide.** Choose which revisions to make, and revise. Calibrate your claims: use "causes" only if your design supports causal claims, use "is associated with" for correlation, and describe descriptive work as description. Don't bury null results or failures.
6. **You.** Final checks: consistent citations, every source verified, word count, attachments, AI-use note.

## Check before submitting

- [ ] Your answer appears on page one.
- [ ] Every claim is supported, and causal language only where the design supports it.
- [ ] The strongest objection or rival is addressed.
- [ ] Feedback from peer reviews and the panel is addressed.
- [ ] Every citation is verified; no AI-invented sources.
- [ ] The word count fits your units.
- [ ] Attachments and the AI-use note are included.
- [ ] With a partner: both of you contributed to every major step, as set out in your work-sharing contract.

## Common traps

- **Stapling milestones together.** Integrate them into one argument.
- **An introduction written in October.** Rewrite it to match what you actually found.
- **Hedging everything, or nothing.** Make each claim exactly as strong as its evidence.
- **AI-polished prose you didn't write.** This breaks the course policy. It also tends to erase your own voice and argument.

---
*Requirements from the POLISCI 158 syllabus (Project Components and Deadlines; Generative AI policy).*