Capstone: The Market Audit
A market audit and redesign proposal for a case of your own choosing — and the semester's required act of doubting its own model
Due: 26 May 2028 · Weight: 40%
The brief#
Pick a case. Diagnose its market failure. Redesign the rule that causes it. Then argue, specifically, for one thing this entire framework can’t see about your case.
The case can be fictional, historical, or a clearly hypothetical composite — not a real, identifiable person’s real relationship. Structure follows the semester: search and information problems first, a proposed redesign second (drawing directly on Assignment 2’s method), and a closing section that does what tutorial 12 rehearsed — names something the market model genuinely fails to explain about your case, argued specifically rather than as a general disclaimer that models have limits.
A capstone that only executes the semester’s tools well, or only critiques them without having executed anything, both undershoot the brief. It wants both, in that order.
What you submit#
A single document, roughly 1,500–2,500 words, covering all three parts above — or an equivalent artefact if you’ve discussed a different format with your tutor, sized to match. Whatever a marker needs to follow the argument without you in the room — this stands alone.
A template with the three sections and their concept-naming prompts is below; using it is optional, but the structure it follows isn’t.
Download the capstone template (.md)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, in the format named below
- it stands on its own, without you there to explain it
- it names a specific market failure in your chosen case, proposes a specific redesign for it, and then argues for one thing the market framework itself fails to capture about that same case
- each of the three sections explicitly names the concept it's applying (or, in the critique, the concept the framework is missing) — not just an answer
How it is marked
| Criterion | Weight | Perfect (HD) | Excellent (HD) | Very Good (D) | Good (C) | Satisfactory (P) | Borderline (P) | Unsatisfactory (F) | Poor (F) | Not Shown (0) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Diagnose | 30% | The market failure is diagnosed with complete precision — the specific search, signalling, or information problem is named and traced exactly through the chosen case. | Rigorous, case-specific diagnosis naming the exact mechanism at work. | Strong diagnosis that clearly identifies the relevant market failure and applies it to the case in detail. | Thoughtful diagnosis naming a plausible market failure and connecting it to the case. | A market failure is identified and named, though the connection to the specific case is somewhat generic. | Diagnosis gestures at a market failure without precisely naming the mechanism. | No clear market failure is identified, or the one named doesn't fit the case. | No diagnosis attempted, or it merely restates the case as a problem without economic content. | Section not submitted. |
| Redesign | 30% | The redesign is a genuinely incentive-compatible mechanism, argued with the same rigor Assignment 2 required, specific to the diagnosed failure. | A precise, well-argued redesign that clearly draws on the semester's mechanism-design method. | A solid redesign with a clear incentive argument for why it works. | A specific redesign is proposed with reasonable justification. | A redesign is proposed, though the incentive-compatibility argument is thin. | The redesign is closer to advice than a mechanism. | No real redesign is proposed, or it doesn't address the diagnosed failure. | Redesign section is missing or entirely disconnected from the diagnosis. | Section not submitted. |
| Critique | 30% | Names a precise, specific thing the market framework cannot explain about this exact case — genuinely doubts its own model rather than gesturing at limits. | A sharp, case-specific critique that goes well beyond a general disclaimer. | A clear, specific gap in the framework is identified and argued. | A thoughtful critique naming a real limitation, argued for the case at hand. | A limitation is named, though the argument for it being specific to this case is thin. | Critique reads as a generic "models have limits" disclaimer. | No genuine critique offered, or it undermines the redesign rather than the framework. | Critique section missing or entirely generic. | Section not submitted. |
| The case is playful, not just correct | 10% | The case is a small comic universe — specific, inventive, and executed with a completely straight face; reading it is a pleasure independent of the mark it earns. | The case is genuinely inventive and committed to its own premise, with real wit in the details. | The case shows real imagination and a light touch, beyond the minimum needed to make the argument work. | The case is well-chosen and has at least one genuinely delightful detail. | The case is competent and specific, without much personality. | The case is generic — it works, but reads like a placeholder. | The case is thin enough that any market failure could be substituted in without changing a word. | No real case is chosen — the argument floats free of any specific, invented scenario. | No capstone submitted. |