The brief#
Put the corpus on a wall for a stranger.
The visitor#
Someone from elsewhere in the school. They have not been to a lecture, they do not know what a phrase table is, and they will give you about six minutes.
They are not the reason to simplify. They are the reason the arrangement has to carry the argument, because they will read three cards, not fifteen, and which three is decided by where you put them.
Curation#
Eight to fifteen specimens. The order is the argument: a wall that runs chronologically is making a claim about progress, and a wall grouped by mechanism is making a different one. Either is fine. Neither by accident.
Wall text#
Two hundred words at the entrance, and a card per specimen. The card carries the provenance on its front. A verification level printed on the back of a card, or left in a folder, presents a specimen as more certain than it is, and that is the one failure this brief does not forgive.
The exclusions#
The exhibit documents what it left out and why. Week 9’s bench produces that list and it is part of the submission, not an appendix to it. A curated corpus that does not say what it excluded has not been curated.
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.
- between eight and fifteen specimens, arranged so the arrangement is an argument
- every card carries source, date and verification level where a visitor can read them
- the exhibit documents what was excluded and why
- it works for a visitor who attended no lectures
How it is marked
| Criterion | Weight |
|---|---|
| Curation | 40% |
| Wall text | 35% |
| Provenance on display | 25% |