Comparative Literature Review
A review of the regional and global case corpus from weeks 7–9, marked on breadth of comparison and quality of evaluation of competing accounts.
Due: 19 April 2027 · Weight: 30%
The brief#
Review the regional and global case corpus and state what it does and does not support about a common cause behind anomalous phenomena.
The comparative method from week 7 is the review’s real subject: which cases count as evidence, and why. Breadth without evaluation is a bibliography; evaluation without breadth is one case standing in for the whole corpus. Neither passes here. The review is not asked to settle the fourth- dimensional hypothesis or any other framework — that phase comes later — and a review that reaches for a verdict it doesn’t have the cases to support is marked down, not up, for confidence.
What you submit#
A written review, any reasonable length for the case count you’re handling, citing each case with enough of its source that a marker could check it against the comparative method’s sourcing test. State the convergence you find, and state at least one thing the corpus does not settle.
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.
- submitted by the deadline, drawing on cases from both the regional and global surveys (weeks 7–8)
- every case cited passes the comparative method's sourcing test from week 7 (named source, behaviour description, corroboration), or is explicitly flagged as not passing and weighted accordingly
- the review states what the cited cases converge on and, separately, what they do not — it does not resolve the gap into a single cause
How it is marked
| Criterion | Weight |
|---|---|
| Breadth of comparison | 50% |
| Quality of evaluation | 50% |