The Redemption Project
Autopsy, defence, evidence and a redesign of one real system you actually hate, argued in that order
Due: 24 May 2027 · Weight: 40%
The brief#
Choose a real system you hate, work out why it’s actually built that way, test it, then build and defend something better.
This isn’t “here’s a nicer UI.” It’s five moves on one real system — an interface, a product, a service, a physical object, an administrative process, whatever you can get real evidence about. First, the autopsy: what’s actually wrong with it, for whom, and why. Then the defence: the legitimate reasons — cost, safety, law, accessibility, some stakeholder you hadn’t considered — that might explain why it was built this way anyway, taken seriously rather than strawmanned. Then the experiment: some small test or observation that shows the problem is real, not just annoying to you personally. Then the redesign itself, which has to keep whatever legitimate job the original was doing. And finally, a defence of that redesign — why it’s actually better, not just different, with evidence to back the claim.
Scope this for twelve weeks, not twelve months. A small system done properly beats an ambitious one done halfway.
What you submit#
A report of around 1,500–2,000 words carrying all five parts in order — autopsy, defence, experiment, redesign, defence of the redesign — plus whatever prototype fits your system: an interactive build, a redesigned process, a service blueprint, a physical mock-up. It has to stand on its own without you there to explain it. You’ll also present it live at the Worst Design Awards, which is really the same five parts compressed into: what it was, why it existed, what the evidence showed, and what you changed.
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.
- it stands on its own, without you there to present it
- all five parts are present — autopsy, defence, experiment, redesign, defence of the redesign
- the redesign is argued to be better, not just different, with evidence from your own testing
- the written report runs roughly 1,500–2,000 words, and the live presentation compresses it to what it was, why it existed, what the evidence showed, and what you changed
How it is marked
Judged as a whole against the brief — whether the autopsy correctly identifies the mechanism, whether the defence takes the original design's goals seriously rather than strawmanning them, whether the experiment produces real evidence about the original system, whether the redesign keeps the original's legitimate goals intact, and whether the final defence argues convincingly that the new version is actually better, not just nicer to look at.