The SAIL Challenge assesses your judgment, not just your answers. We evaluate the quality of your thinking process, your ability to critically evaluate AI, and your capacity to own decisions. A well-reasoned analysis that acknowledges uncertainty is valued over a confident answer with shallow justification.
Phase 1: Foundation
Weight: 25% of total grade
| Dimension | Exemplary (4) | Proficient (3) | Developing (2) | Beginning (1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Independent Analysis I |
Demonstrates substantive, original thinking. Identifies key issues and provides reasoned analysis with clear logic. | Shows solid independent thinking. Addresses main issues with reasonable analysis. | Some independent thinking visible, but analysis is shallow or misses important issues. | Minimal original analysis. Appears to be placeholder or generic content. |
| Use of Knowledge A |
Effectively applies relevant course concepts, frameworks, or domain knowledge to the case. | Applies some relevant knowledge appropriately. | Limited application of relevant knowledge; connections unclear. | No meaningful application of domain knowledge. |
| Clarity S |
Well-organized, clearly written, easy to follow. Reasoning is transparent. | Generally clear with minor organizational issues. | Some confusion in organization or expression. | Difficult to follow; unclear reasoning. |
Phase 2: Integration
Weight: 35% of total grade
| Dimension | Exemplary (4) | Proficient (3) | Developing (2) | Beginning (1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AI Evaluation A |
Thorough, critical evaluation of AI output. Clearly identifies strengths, limitations, errors, or hallucinations with specific examples. | Good evaluation with clear identification of some AI strengths and weaknesses. | Basic evaluation; accepts AI output with limited critical analysis. | No meaningful evaluation; simply reports AI output. |
| Comparison Quality I |
Insightful comparison between Phase 1 analysis and AI output. Identifies meaningful differences and explores why they exist. | Clear comparison noting key differences between human and AI analysis. | Some comparison attempted but superficial or incomplete. | No meaningful comparison to Phase 1 work. |
| Prompting & Iteration I |
Evidence of thoughtful prompting, follow-up questions, and iterative engagement with AI. Treats AI as thought partner to test. | Shows some iteration and follow-up with AI. | Single-prompt approach with minimal follow-up. | No evidence of thoughtful AI engagement. |
| Documentation S |
Complete, well-organized documentation of AI interaction including prompts used and evaluation notes. | Good documentation with most key elements. | Incomplete documentation; missing prompts or evaluation details. | Little or no documentation of AI interaction. |
Phase 3: Leadership
Weight: 40% of total grade
| Dimension | Exemplary (4) | Proficient (3) | Developing (2) | Beginning (1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Judgment Quality L |
Clear, well-reasoned final recommendation. Demonstrates sound judgment integrating multiple perspectives. | Solid recommendation with good reasoning. | Recommendation present but reasoning is thin or unclear. | No clear recommendation or reasoning. |
| Integration Reasoning L |
Clearly articulates where and why they followed AI, where and why they diverged. Shows ownership of decision. | Explains most decisions about following or diverging from AI. | Some explanation of AI integration but incomplete. | No explanation of how AI influenced final decision. |
| Metacognition I |
Thoughtful reflection on own thinking process. Identifies what they learned about their own judgment through the comparison. | Some reflection on thinking process. | Limited reflection; focuses on content rather than process. | No evidence of metacognitive reflection. |
| Professional Communication S |
Memo is polished, concise, and written at a professional level. Could be presented to a senior decision-maker. | Generally professional with minor issues. | Some professionalism issues; would need revision before sharing. | Does not meet professional communication standards. |
Credential Requirements
To Earn the SAIL Challenge Credential:
- Complete all three phases in order
- Score at least "Proficient" (3) on Judgment Quality and AI Evaluation
- Achieve an overall average of 2.5 or higher across all dimensions
- No dimension scored at "Beginning" (1)
Academic Integrity: Phase 1 must be completed without AI assistance. Evidence of AI use in Phase 1 (detectable through comparison with Phase 2, writing style analysis, or other means) will result in failing the Challenge. The integrity of the comparison depends on authentic Phase 1 work.
SAIL Competency Key
Each dimension maps to one or more SAIL competencies:
- S Social Intelligence — Communicating clearly and professionally
- A AI Literacy — Understanding and evaluating AI capabilities and limitations
- I Innovation/Inquiry — Questioning, comparing, reflecting on thinking
- L Leadership — Taking responsibility, making and owning decisions