Autopsy Report
The main event — a full written case for why your specimen closed, cross-examined by a peer before it's marked.
Due: 21 September 2026 · Weight: 45%
The brief#
The case for why your specimen closed, built so a stranger could follow it without having read anything else you’ve produced this semester.
This is the load-bearing piece of the semester — the dossier proved you had a real specimen, this proves you can build a defensible explanation from it. “Defensible” is doing the work in that sentence: a report that only ever argues for itself, and never puts a competing explanation in the room to rule it out, has not done the job this course is teaching.
What “competing explanations” means here#
Every restaurant closure has at least three plausible stories on offer before you dig — bad location, bad food, bad luck. Naming the ones that don’t hold up, and showing why, is worth more marks than a longer list of evidence for the one you believe.
What you submit#
A written report, any reasonable length, structured so the verdict comes first and the evidence follows it — not the reverse. Attach or summarise the week 9 cross-examination: what a peer challenged, and what you did about it.
The spec
The brief poses the problem and leaves room for a response. The spec is the fixed part: what a marker checks. Some lines can be checked mechanically; the rest call for judgement.
- a single named cause-of-closure argument, stated in the opening section
- at least two competing explanations named and explicitly addressed
- every factual claim traceable to a source in a reference list
- the peer cross-examination note from week 9 attached or summarised
How it is marked
| Criterion | Weight |
|---|---|
| Evidence is sourced, dated and independently verifiable | 35% |
| Competing explanations are named and ruled out, not ignored | 30% |
| The argument holds together under the week 9 cross-examination | 20% |
| Written for a reader who has never heard of your specimen | 15% |