Begin with the portfolio already built
Portfolio readiness · Four minutes
Lay out the Aster baseline, midpoint brief, decision meeting, accepted A/B repair, complete Lesson 7 analysis and audits, spoken handover, listener trace and revision brief. Place one written piece from each of Units 37–39 beside the Unit 40 analysis.
Confirm that the final assessment revises and presents the existing work rather than replacing it with a new case.
- Check that the first complete Unit 40 draft remains intact and contains exactly 440 body words under the recorded convention.
- Name the one written revision and one spoken retest supported by Lesson 7 evidence; write “no repair evidenced” where recovery was complete.
- State the Aster decision, strongest basis, largest limit and action gates in noun phrases only.
- Confirm that the four-piece Term 1 portfolio contains an existing, identifiable piece from each of Units 37, 38, 39 and 40. Missing work stays marked missing.
Choose the action that preserves valid development evidence.
1. The Lesson 7 listener missed the access owner, while the written gate was otherwise complete. What should be submitted?
2. Which four-piece portfolio record meets the Term 1 boundary?
Four products, kept distinct
Final evidence package
| Product | Constraint | What it can demonstrate |
|---|---|---|
| Final professional analysis | Exactly 440 body words; same Aster decision and evidence record developed in Lessons 1–7 | Written reporting, calibration, option analysis and accountable implementation |
| Aster presentation and challenge | Opening section of the 14-minute interview; presentation from headings, followed by an unprepared challenge | Spoken professional hierarchy, prosody, evidence boundaries and responsive advice |
| C1 Term 1 interview | Exactly 14 minutes covering register, narrative, critical geography and professional voice | Integrated spoken performance across Units 37–40 without averaging away uneven dimensions |
| Four-piece portfolio | One existing written piece from each of Units 37, 38, 39 and 40, with title and evidence claim | Written development across the term; presence alone does not prove quality |
| Judgement record | Each rating cites an exact line, audio time stamp, listener reconstruction or documented revision result | Bounded claims of what is secure, emerging or not yet evidenced |
Match each assessment claim to the evidence that can directly support it. Keep retrieval activities, final products and level-wide claims separate.
W Final 440-word analysis
P Aster presentation and challenge
I Full 14-minute interview
F Four-piece portfolio
R Revision trail and listener trace
1. The writer distinguishes the vendor projection from Northbank’s verified evidence and keeps its assumption attached.
2. The speaker protects a conditional recommendation after the chair interrupts and asks for a yes-or-no answer.
3. The learner can shift among a formal register task, a layered narrative, a critical-geography judgement and professional advice.
4. Written work exists across Units 37–40 and includes an early/later development comparison.
5. A local wording or delivery change improved recovery of source, condition or responsible actor.
Assessment boundary
The interactive activities on this page prepare and clarify the assessment. They do not calculate a C1 result. The final analysis, unedited interview, four actual portfolio pieces and evidence record must each exist before a term-level claim is made.
Judge six dimensions in each mode
Unit 40 evidence rubric · Not yet · Emerging · Secure
| Dimension | Secure written evidence | Secure spoken evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Professional purpose | The document states a usable decision, compares serious options and gives the board a route to authorize or withhold action | The presentation leads with the decision, adapts to challenge and does not retreat into a data list |
| Evidence integrity | Facts, subsets, comparisons, projections, interpretations and open reviews retain their recorded status | The speaker corrects, limits or withdraws a claim when the shared evidence requires it |
| Reporting control | Reporting verbs take accurate complements and express justified source stance and responsibility | Attribution survives compression, interruption and follow-up questioning |
| Hedging precision | Qualification reaches the exact open layer while established facts and owned advice remain direct | Certainty changes by proposition rather than by audience pressure or a globally cautious tone |
| Discourse and accountability | Evidence leads through bounded interpretation and criteria to gates, owners and a next decision point | Answers address the live question, update common ground and keep decision conditions recoverable |
| Register and prosody | Lexis, density, headings and sentence hierarchy fit an executive analysis without hiding agency | Thought groups, selective prominence, pace and stance create authority through recoverable structure |
Match each observation to the single dimension it directly supports.
Choose the judgement the evidence permits.
1. The written analysis preserves every source and limit, but the speaker loses conditions after interruption. What follows?
2. One accurate answer uses suggest correctly. What can that prove?
3. The learner applies a valid repair but has no comparable cross-language evidence. How should Brazilian-Portuguese transfer be recorded?
Repair the gates without rehearsing the answers
Make only the named repair. Preserve the Aster evidence and identify the rubric dimension protected.
1. The vendor suggested Northbank to adopt Aster. — reporting complement
2. Aster reduced resolution time across Northbank. — causal and company-wide overclaim
3. Perhaps the annual licence may cost around 480,000 credits. — established fact over-hedged
4. It is recommended that some checks should happen before expansion. — responsibility hidden
5. The incident proves that client data were exposed. — evidence identity and strength
6. We have a lot of stuff to consider, so maybe we can do something later. — professional purpose
Order the moves into a final Aster presentation that can be challenged. Use noun phrases only when preparing.
- Compare the recommendation with the strongest serious alternative under explicit criteria.
- Give the strongest operational basis together with volume and design limits.
- Close with no more than four gates, responsible roles, required evidence and the next decision point.
- State the limited-extension recommendation and the wider authorization being withheld.
- Evaluate the commercial projection, workforce evidence and material assurance gaps without merging their statuses.
Prepare four interview anchors, not scripts
The 14-minute interview includes unprepared follow-ups from Units 37–40. The exact questions after each anchor are not known.
Write one noun phrase for register, narrative, critical geography and professional voice, plus one uncertainty that invites a genuine follow-up.
- Use existing unit artifacts: a register choice from Unit 37, a layered story from Unit 38, a mobility/power/place judgement from Unit 39 and the Aster decision from Unit 40.
- Do not write complete answers. A script would hide the responsiveness, calibration and self-repair evidence the interview needs.
Submit the analysis and defend the professional judgement
Part 1 · Final 440-word professional analysis · 8 minutes
Use the Lesson 7 revision brief to make only evidence-supported local changes, then submit the final Aster analysis beside the first complete draft.
Submit exactly 440 body words that give Northbank a defensible current decision and an accountable route to wider authorization.
- Minutes 1–3: apply the documented written revision or record “no repair evidenced”. Preserve successful language elsewhere.
- Minutes 4–5: verify the five-section architecture—60 + 90 + 110 + 80 + 100 words—and the jobs of decision, basis, risk, options and implementation.
- Minute 6: audit every number, source, subset, comparison, relationship, projection and open review against the shared Aster record.
- Minute 7: check reporting complements, stance, exact hedge scope, gates, owners and the accepted Lesson 6 principle.
- Minute 8: verify exactly 440 body words under the recorded convention and freeze the submitted version. Keep title and headings outside the count.
Live professional challenge cards · Reveal after the Aster opening
| Card | Board pressure | Required response |
|---|---|---|
| A · Commercial certainty | “The vendor says the platform returns more than twice its cost. Why wait?” | Correct source/status, preserve the model assumption and connect timing to a proportionate action |
| B · Operational causation | “A 2.2-hour reduction is enough proof for all six teams.” | State the observed comparison, volume and design limits, then specify the transfer evidence needed |
| C · Workforce representation | “Only 24 of 84 employees objected, so disruption is minor.” | Correct the denominator, preserve non-respondent uncertainty and explain the decision consequence without inventing prevalence |
| D · Assurance timing | “Sign now; accessibility and the routing incident can be fixed during rollout.” | Answer directly, distinguish known event from open mechanism and defend operational gates and ownership |
Part 2 · C1 Term 1 speaking interview · Exactly 14 minutes
The interviewer keeps time and asks unprepared follow-ups. Use existing artifacts and noun-phrase anchors; do not read the analysis or a script. In pairs, each learner completes a separate 14-minute interview while the teacher observes or moderates a sample.
Sustain four connected sections covering register, narrative, critical geography and professional voice, with evidence-bound responses and local self-repair.
- Minutes 0–4 · Unit 40 professional voice: present the Aster recommendation for about three minutes, then answer one revealed challenge card. Preserve source, scope, relationship, conditions and professional prosody under pressure.
- Minutes 4–7 · Unit 37 register: explain one consequential register choice from the unit and adapt the same message for a new audience or relationship. Follow-up: What changes, and what meaning must remain stable?
- Minutes 7–10:30 · Unit 38 narrative: tell a layered account from the unit, distinguishing event line, background, source and relative time. Follow-up: Which detail would you expand or compress for this listener, and why?
- Minutes 10:30–14 · Unit 39 critical geography: state the Vista Line judgement and respond to a challenge about benefit, burden, power, evidence or responsible action. Follow-up: What would make you revise the decision?
- The interviewer may interrupt, correct a factual premise or ask whose claim is being reported. The learner may repair, narrow, qualify or withdraw a proposition and continue.
Part 3 · Evidence record · 4 minutes
Judge the Unit 40 writing and speaking against all six rubric dimensions only after both final products exist.
Mark not yet, emerging or secure separately by mode and cite one exact observation for each label.
- For writing, cite a sentence, section job, source-boundary package, option comparison, gate or traceable revision consequence.
- For speaking, cite an audio time stamp, challenge response, recovered source or condition, prosodic cue or successful local repair.
- For the term interview, keep observations under register, narrative, critical geography and professional voice before making any cross-unit claim.
- Record Brazilian-Portuguese transfer only when repeated comparable learner evidence supports the link; otherwise preserve the English result and mark transfer unverified.
Part 4 · Four-piece Term 1 portfolio · 4 minutes
List one actual written piece from each of Units 37–40 and place the four artifacts beside the final assessment record.
Create a traceable term portfolio record and one bounded development comparison.
- For each piece, record unit, title, date, word count or task constraint and one ability it demonstrates.
- Mark one early/later pair showing development in audience fit, narrative control, critical judgement, reporting or hedging precision.
- Name one piece requiring further revision and the exact evidence for that priority. Do not convert a missing piece into a title-only entry.
Required submission package
| Artifact | Traceability check |
|---|---|
| Final Aster analysis | Exactly 440 body words plus visible section counts and counting convention |
| Written development | Lesson 7 first draft, audits, revision brief and exact final change |
| Final speaking | Unedited 14-minute interview including the Aster presentation and revealed challenge card |
| Spoken development | Lesson 5 meeting, Lesson 6 A/B repair, Lesson 7 handover and final listener evidence |
| Term portfolio | Four actual written pieces, one from each of Units 37–40, with an evidence claim |
| Judgement record | Separate written and spoken Unit 40 ratings plus observations for all four interview sections |
Close the unit with bounded evidence
Choose the conclusion justified by the stated evidence.
1. The analysis is accurate and accountable, but the spoken presentation repeatedly hides sources under pressure. Which claim fits?
2. The speaker narrows a causal claim after challenge, preserves the operational signal and continues to a revised condition. What does this show?
3. Three interview sections are secure, while the narrative chronology remains difficult to recover. What follows?
Close the Unit 40 and Term 1 record
Review the six Unit 40 rubric judgements, four interview-section observations and four-piece portfolio after confirming that each cited artifact exists.
Write one bounded can-do claim, one remaining test and one term development statement.
- Complete: “In this professional analysis and presentation, I can ___, as shown by ___.”
- Complete: “I still need to test ___ when ___, using ___ as evidence.”
- Complete: “Across Units 37–40, the clearest development is ___ between ___ and ___.”
- Name one Lesson 1 hedging or reporting choice that became more precise by Lesson 8 and cite the before/after evidence.
Carry calibrated professional voice into public argument
Choose the Unit 40 principle that transfers into Unit 41.
1. What should remain stable when a board recommendation gives way to a formal public argument?
Bridge record
Archive the final observation from the full Conversations with Tyler episode and Harvard Business Review feature beside the Unit 40 portfolio, with exact source locations and no extended copied wording. Recast one bounded Aster recommendation as a 60-second public claim for an audience without access to the internal record: name the source, explain the limit and state who is responsible for the claim. Bring the recording and audience description to Unit 41 as a baseline of formal public argument, not as a new conclusion about Aster.