Criteria for creative work

An effective idea can take many forms. These criteria describe the evidence of a decision and its effect; they do not require a particular style.

Proposed version 2026-10-10.2 for teacher review. IE means there is not enough evidence for a judgment. Support/access is recorded separately. O/C/P are evidence channels; they are not three separate weighted grades.

Criterion	Beginning	Developing	Secure	Extending
Communication MM12-1.2; MM12-1.4; MM12-1.5	The event message, audience and viewing context are vague or contradict the image.	Some story or audience cues are visible; priorities remain unclear.	The image communicates a clear event message with justified reading priorities at the intended view.	Choices anticipate competing interpretations and viewing constraints; tests support purposeful refinements.
Design and typography MM12-1.4; MM12-1.5	Relationships are accidental or key text is difficult to read.	Some deliberate hierarchy, colour and type choices; inconsistencies reduce meaning.	Hierarchy, contrast, composition, colour roles and editable typography work coherently for the brief.	Controlled alternatives and careful refinements improve communication; exceptions are justified with evidence.
Recoverable technique MM12-1.1; MM12-1.3; MM12-1.4	Edits cannot be inspected or serious edge/light faults undermine the image.	Relevant masks/adjustments are present; some faults remain or controls are hard to locate.	Named layers, masks and adjustments enable revision; edges, light and tone are coherent at the required view.	Precise diagnosis and controlled refinements handle difficult relationships while preserving the source.
Research and planning MM12-1.2; MM12-1.3	The communication problem is unclear; references or alternatives are too incomplete to support a decision.	Audience and credited references are identified; alternatives or contextual analysis are partial, and selection relies mainly on preference.	Two genuine references distinguish observation, sourced context and inference; three distinct concepts and two treatments lead to a justified feasible direction for the client.	The student weighs competing readings and constraints, uses research without copying, and revises a distinctive direction when new evidence changes the plan.
Testing and revision MM12-1.4; MM12-1.5	No usable test or revision evidence.	A response is recorded, but its connection to a change is weak.	Actual viewer responses lead to a targeted revision; before/after evidence evaluates its effect.	The student evaluates conflicting feedback, checks a revised version and explains a remaining limitation.
Documentation and delivery MM12-1.3; MM12-1.4; MM12-1.5	Important sources, decisions or files cannot be traced or opened; explanations lack usable evidence.	Some sources and changes are recorded; gaps in evidence, file organisation or explanations make the handoff difficult to follow.	A concise decision/source log locates key controls, actual tests and revisions; checked editable sources and exports open correctly, and the student defends the decisions.	A clear handoff lets another person locate and revise the source; the student evaluates trade-offs and independently checks an appropriate response to a taught changed condition.

Planning view

Show the problem, credited reference analysis, mood-board reasons, genuinely distinct alternatives and a feasible selected direction. Research and planning is the primary criterion; communication and design criteria also inform whether the direction fits the brief. Quantity of pictures or writing earns no automatic level.

Documentation view

Keep consequential decisions, source/AI credits, a source-control anchor, actual test response, before/after revision and delivery check. Documentation and delivery is primary; testing/revision and recoverable technique use these records as evidence. Do not record every click.

Product view

Show how image, hierarchy, colour and type communicate for this client in both views. Open the layered file so the teacher can inspect and ask about your own controls. Attractive appearance alone does not prove how it was made.

Conversation view

Point to actual work. Explain the intended effect, evidence, a rejected option and a response to changed conditions. Accuracy, reasoning and transfer matter; confidence, accent and eye contact are not design-knowledge criteria.