Final Project — Operation Last Light

How to participate#

In person is the preferred route. Use the campus teaching pack in the facilitated session, with the supplied apparatus or paper models and the required individual, pair or team responsibilities. Keep your station sheets, predictions, revisions, receiver acknowledgements and explanation. These form the practical record; an additional browser run is not required.

Online, if you cannot attend: use the equivalent activity and control instructions below. The 3D environment supports the same reasoning, rehearsals and evidence requirements. Both routes use this brief’s deliverables and rubric. Label measured, paper-model and simulated results accurately.

Online control guide: recover the archive as a team#

Your task: use the semester’s skills together at Meridian Station. Establish what you intend to recover, verify the evidence, make the equipment ready, agree responsibilities and explain changes to the plan.

The two operations are different: Operation Lamplight is the complete alternate demonstration. Operation Last Light is the actual mission for this assessment.

1. Agree the four responsibilities below. Open Operation Last Light and choose the scenario and declared objective for a new trial. Inspect the mission console. A resumed record preserves its original intention.
2. As Coordinator, preserve Version 1 at Dispatch: objective, necessary evidence, tests you can omit with reasons, responsibilities and a condition that would change the plan.
3. Decide your investigation order. Read the outcome requirements below; use the role tools and labelled areas to find relevant evidence. Locate this objective is optional control help. It identifies an area without moving you or supplying a solution.
4. Compare the actual findings against the intended operation. Request information from other roles and test consequential dependencies. Preserve a separate revision explaining a changed decision or a tested assumption; do not rewrite Version 1.
5. Select Approach to perform. The journal changes to the requirements of that approach. At Dispatch, perform its physical release/transport, verified transmission or stationary-support handover. Keyboard/touch field buttons provide the equivalent path when walking is unavailable.
6. After the receiving point confirms the operation, record the applicable outcome evidence. Explain the scope of your checks, a credible alternative and the remaining obligation. File that outcome, read the debrief and export it.
7. Keep two contrasting rehearsal records using different presets, then a final run. At least one rehearsal must pursue a different approach so your comparison tests a real change of dependencies, not only renamed data. Assemble the account and individual defences after playing.

You are finished when: the final run has a justified resolution and debrief, both contrasting rehearsals are preserved, and the entire submission bundle is ready. A different ending can be defensible; explain how it meets the objective or why that objective changed.

Playing in fullscreen: choose Fullscreen mission. Its Mission & controls panel contains the journal, role instructions, area switches, actions and exports, so you can complete the practical run without leaving the view. Scroll over the scene to zoom, click and drag to turn with the cursor free. Press X to lock the cursor for mouse-look; press X again (or Tab) to free it for scrolling and choosing options. Esc or Exit fullscreen returns to the page. Save the longer written defence for after the run.

The brief#

Form a group of four, normally by combining two A2 pairs. Recover the last intact research archive at fictional Meridian Station under the published authority and handling rules.

Use the final mission for the browser route or the campus mission pack. The mission combines the semester’s skills in a new setting. You must recognise when a capability is needed, rather than waiting for every challenge to announce its week number.

Roles and responsibilities#

• Observer/navigator: scene information, layout and route predictions.
• Systems specialist: mechanism, circuit and equipment verification.
• Investigator: source comparison, integrity and permission checks.
• Coordinator: handoffs, negotiated agreements and objective changes.

Roles distribute responsibility without making understanding exclusive. Every student must explain at least one dependency outside their principal role. Solo practice can rotate all roles; the assessed course task remains a group project unless an individual arrangement is recorded.

How the skills become one operation#

There is a shared foundation: identity and current authority → evidence supporting an objective → coordinated action → observed consequence → accountable handover. The exact equipment chain depends on the objective.

The compact mission’s Power bay provides one combined supply-and-fuse measurement, replacement and load verification. It does not offer an independent choice of diagnostic probes. When power supports your chosen outcome, cite the relevant Lab 5 diagnosis record to explain your testing method and distinguish that prior learning from the narrower check performed here.

Use all four roles to question the proposed scope. For example, the Navigator can audit whether leaving the original in place really removes a transport dependency; the Investigator can challenge whether a correct receipt proves enough. Different numbers of controls do not mean different marking standards: every approach must defend its evidence, alternative and consequences.

The journal records objective-specific conditions. It does not grade the written justification or prove that omitted checks were wise. Your marker examines that reasoning. Earlier labs and assessments already establish capabilities that a particular final approach does not require.

If evidence, supporting equipment or the objective changes, recheck its dependent actions. Unrelated equipment changes do not invalidate a supported digital receipt. Previous runs remain historical records; export them before beginning a new rehearsal.

Mission and resolutions#

Choose an objective, investigate its requirements and respond to a published disruption. The field operation must produce the consequence you claim:

For every ending, record why its checks were necessary, which could be omitted and why, a credible alternative and a remaining obligation. Stabilisation additionally needs a named monitoring responsibility and an escalation condition. A record for one ending does not authorise another. If you change the ending or a dependent check, review and record the applicable evidence again.

No ending is automatically worth more marks. A resolution must meet the objective the team actually claims. If the objective changes, record and defend the change.

What you hand over#

• Two contrasting rehearsal records using different published presets and different approaches.
• A final mission run with performed intervention, ordered checkpoints and receiving handover, its outcome-specific evidence record and its evidence-linked debrief.
• The original team plan and a preserved revision.
• A role agreement and contribution record.
• An 800–1,200-word team account.
• A ten-minute team presentation.
• A 300-word individual defence from each member.

Use the published Baseline, Equipment Failure and Conflicting Archive presets. A final run can repeat a rehearsed preset; the account must still explain what the rehearsals changed. Cite activity records where earlier learning informed a decision.

Team account and presentation#

State the original objective and its constraints. Explain one integrated chain of decisions across roles: identify who supplied each finding, which later action depended on it and how you checked that action. Compare the two rehearsals, identify the changed dependency and show the verification used in the final run. End with the unresolved consequence or limitation that matters most.

Use the presentation to demonstrate one consequential decision and its alternative. Do not spend the whole ten minutes retelling every movement through the station. Caption recorded media and provide readable diagrams or ordered text.

Individual defence#

Explain a decision you owned, the evidence supporting it, one dependency on another role and one credible alternative. Distinguish what you directly observed from what another person reported. The defence supplies 20% of the task mark separately for each member; the remaining 80% is assessed from the group work.

Feedback and final-week arrangements#

Feedback is scheduled within seven days. The standard 48-hour extension cannot move work beyond the teaching-period end; final-week needs require a stated individual arrangement. Preserve incomplete work and contribution evidence if a teammate becomes unavailable. The policy page explains the fictional course rules.

Criterion-specific performance standards#

Integration — 25%#

• Outstanding: Selects and combines relevant capabilities, justifies omissions, verifies the claimed resolution and compares a credible alternative.
• Competent: Combines the major capabilities with minor gaps in verification.
• Developing: Weekly skills appear separately but their mission dependencies are weak.
• Insufficient: The mission account does not demonstrate the required integrated capability.

Evidence — 15%#

• Outstanding: Consequential claims cite current records, observed checks and explicit reference limits.
• Competent: Main decisions have relevant evidence and some acknowledgement of limits.
• Developing: Evidence is present but authority or scope is unclear.
• Insufficient: Claims conflict with records or lack usable support.

Coordination — 20%#

• Outstanding: All four roles contribute; agreements, read-backs and changed responsibilities are documented.
• Competent: Roles and contributions are clear with occasional incomplete handoffs.
• Developing: Coordination depends on unrecorded assumptions or uneven ownership.
• Insufficient: No assessable team process or contribution evidence.

Adaptation — 20%#

• Outstanding: Contrasting rehearsals lead to a reasoned revision, with dependencies and consequences tested.
• Competent: Rehearsal findings produce a plausible documented change.
• Developing: Revisions are cosmetic or unconnected to rehearsal evidence.
• Insufficient: No meaningful contrast, preserved original or tested revision.

Individual defence — 20%#

• Outstanding: The student independently explains their contribution, a cross-role dependency, a credible alternative and a limitation.
• Competent: Explains own decisions and one relevant connection or limitation.
• Developing: Describes activity but cannot justify important decisions independently.
• Insufficient: Defence missing or fails to establish individual understanding.

Format, export and access#

Use the downloadable template, retain editable source and export a readable record. The website provides downloads and local practice; it does not submit to an institutional system. The browser and campus routes assess the same concepts and problem-solving outcomes. Neither automatically certifies physical dexterity.

All due times use 17:00 Canberra time on the published date. Policies and support explain attribution, accessible alternatives, contribution disputes, saving and extensions.