Feedback works when students revise.

The loop in one week

Monday file. Tuesday comments or discussion. Thursday revision. Friday note: two bullets on what changed. That loop can sit inside any module.

How to ask for feedback without abdicating

“Should I recommend enter or wait, given these two sourced facts?” is a good ask. “Is this good?” is not. Show the fork.

How to give feedback that expects a loop

Do not rewrite the deck. Circle the joint that fails. Ask for a dated revision. If it does not arrive, that is performance-review material, not a mystery.

Generated drafts and the loop

If a first draft is generated, the student still owes a source log and a revision they can explain. The cycle is how integrity is tested. See standards.

Remote emotion

Written comments feel harsher. Mentors should be specific, not soft to the point of uselessness. Students should wait an hour before replying in defense. Then revise.

Cadence inside a module, not only at the end

Module one should have a draft brief and a marked brief. Module two should have a first sheet and a sheet after sensitivity. Module four should have a skeleton deck and a deck after “so what?” If the only cycle is at the certificate, the student never learned to revise. GVI’s method page is this idea at program scale.

Coordinators can enforce cadence with filenames: v1, v2, date. It feels bureaucratic. It is how remote teams stay sane. It is also how integrity is checkable when a final file looks unlike the student’s earlier writing.

When the cycle stalls

Usually the question is too wide or the student is waiting to feel ready. Shrink the question, submit an ugly v1, and ask for comments on one joint. Waiting for a perfect draft is how weeks vanish. Mentors should accept ugly v1s and refuse empty ones.

Ugly v1s are a feature

A v1 that arrives on time with a source log and a wrong recommendation is a success. It can be marked. A late polished file with no trail is a risk. GVI prefers the first. Students who hide until they feel ready are practicing a remote failure mode: invisible work.

Name the v1 in the filename. Do not overwrite it. Mentors and integrity checks need history. So does the student who later wants to show growth. Overwriting is how evidence libraries go empty even when the student “worked the whole time.”

If AI helped brainstorm questions, say so in the method note and still own the sources and the judgment. The cycle tests ownership. Tools are allowed; ghost authorship is not. Standards page, again, because this is where students bargain with themselves.