The case coach
A case · you decide
Farah — the issue-framer
Farah — frames a public issue at its root — a fixable mechanism, never a villain
Your neighbourhood park floods every spring. You are about to write the issue down — and how you frame it will decide who helps.
The easy frame is “the city is lazy.” It feels satisfying — and it ends the conversation before any research begins.
Farah keeps asking “what would actually have to change?” until the frame is a system: the storm drains, the budget cycle, who maintains what.
How should you frame the flooding issue?
Farah reframes a complaint into a fixable mechanism — so the research has somewhere to go and the plan has people willing to help.
A case · you decide
Devrim — the lateral-reader
Devrim — evaluates a source by leaving the page to check who is behind it
A slick, professional-looking site has the exact statistic your project needs. You can cite it now, or check it first.
Devrim’s rule: before trusting a page, open new tabs. Who runs this site? Who funds it? What do other sources say about them?
A polished page is easy to build; “professional-looking” tells you nothing about whether the number is real.
What should Devrim do before using the statistic?
Devrim keeps unreliable claims out of the evidence by checking who is behind a source — so the plan rests on facts that hold up.
A case · you decide
Marco — the stakeholder-mapper
Marco — maps who is affected AND who can decide, before proposing anything
Your flooding plan is ready. You can send it to the neighbours who already agree — or find out who can actually change the drains.
Marco draws two columns before every plan: affected (who lives with this?) and deciding (who can actually change it?).
His plan looked great until the map showed the deciders were a drainage board he had never contacted, and the most-affected were renters with no vote on it.
Who should the plan be aimed at?
Marco maps before he proposes — so the plan reaches the people who can actually respond, carrying the voices of those most affected.
A case · you decide
Leila — the feasibility-checker
Leila — turns a wish into a plan: by when, with what, and what is step one
Your team has a big, inspiring goal. You can present it as-is, or find the feasible first step inside it.
Leila’s question for any idea is “by when, with what, and what’s step one?” “Raise awareness” fails all three.
She would rather ship a small real step than propose a big vague one — a specific ask, to a specific decider, by a specific date.
How should the team present its goal?
Leila names the feasible first step inside the big vision — so the plan gets done and earns the next step, instead of stalling on applause.
A case · you decide
Dr. Okonkwo — the fair panel-examiner
Dr. Okonkwo — chairs the action-plan panel — probes the reasoning, never the person
A candidate has just presented a plan for a cause you happen to disagree with. As chair, you decide how to question it.
Dr. Okonkwo’s move after any proposal: “who did you check that with, and what would change your mind?” — never “are you right.”
She scores the process — evidence, stakeholders, feasibility, defensibility — never whether she personally agrees with the cause.
How should the panel question a plan whose cause you disagree with?
Dr. Okonkwo probes every plan the same way — process, not politics — so a defence rewards the work, not the position.
A case · you decide
Dario — the reporter
Dario — reports the honest result — including what did not work
Your action did not fully work — the drainage board tabled your proposal. Now you decide what your report says.
Most students would bury a tabled proposal and spin a win. Dario reports it straight: what he tried, what happened, what he would do next.
His report ends with a hand-off, not a trophy — because next year’s team can build on an honest partial result, but a fake win sends them in circles.
What should the report say about the tabled proposal?
Dario reports the honest result and hands it forward — so a tabled proposal becomes next year’s starting line instead of a buried defeat.
A case · you decide
Devrim and Marco check who is behind the report
Devrim & Marco — sixteen, researching a proposal to cut a bus route in her town
A slick report says the bus route "serves almost no one" and should be cut. It is published by a group with a neutral-sounding name.
Devrim's primitive is lateral reading: leave the page and see who runs and funds the source.
Marco's primitive is the stakeholder map: who is affected, and who can decide.
What should Devrim do first?
Who made a source is part of what it says.
A case · you decide
Leila and Dario report the half-success
Dario & Leila — seventeen, writing up a school recycling pilot
Leila planned the pilot: new bins in two hallways for a month. Recycling went up in one hallway and not at all in the other, where the bin was behind a door.
Leila's primitive is feasibility: a plan with a date, the resources and a first step.
Dario's primitive is the honest report: say what happened, including what failed.
How should Dario report the pilot?
A pilot is an experiment. The part that did not work is part of the result.