Research & Design (28 criteria)

Code	Criterion	AI	Justification
RD1	The research topic is an appropriate Chemistry level for the IB DP Chemistry and abides by the IB DP Guidance of “Asking questions worth answering":	1	The research topic investigates how solvent polarity affects permanent marker removal effectiveness measured by light absorption. This is not easily answerable through simple online searches, requires experimental investigation, is not found in textbooks as a direct answer, and explores beyond standard curriculum boundaries by combining solvent chemistry with practical applications.
RD2	Aim is focused in its breadth, investigating at a single relationship.	1	The aim focuses on a single relationship between solvent polarity (IV) and permanent marker removal effectiveness measured by light absorption (DV). The relationship is clearly defined and isolated from other variables.
RD3	Aim wording is specific, so the reader knows exactly what the investigation is about.	0	The aim lacks specificity. It doesn't state the range of polarity values to be tested, doesn't specify the exact solvents by name, and doesn't include important controlled conditions. The reader cannot determine the exact scope without reading further details.
RD4	Sufficiently appropriate referenced science background affecting the Dependent Variable (DV) to allow understanding of the investigation.	0	While background information about polarity and the 'like dissolves like' principle is provided, there are no in-text citations to support the scientific concepts. The background lacks proper referencing to scientific literature that would allow understanding without additional reading.
RD5	Sufficiently appropriate referenced science background explaining how the Independent Variable (IV) will potentially cause changes in the measured Dep	0	The background explains how polarity (IV) might affect marker removal (DV) through the 'like dissolves like' principle, but lacks in-text citations to support this connection. No scientific references are cited to support the proposed relationship between IV and DV.
RD6	Valid hypothesis is justified by logical scientific reasoning and the chemistry is accurate and testable by the method.	1	The hypothesis is explicitly stated and logically derived from the background chemistry discussed. It predicts that non-polar solvents will absorb most light (highest lux readings) due to removing least ink, while polar solvents will be more effective. The hypothesis is testable by the proposed method.
RD7	Quantitative 'Measurable' Independent Variable (IV) to be manipulated is stated and used consistently when referenced throughout the report.	1	The IV (polarity of solvents) is consistently referenced throughout the report using the same terminology. Specific polarity values are consistently provided (0.009 for hexane, 0.355 for acetone, etc.) whenever the solvents are mentioned.
RD8	Quantitative Independent Variable (IV) to be manipulated has correct units stated.	0	The independent variable (polarity of solvents) lacks stated units. Polarity values are given as dimensionless numbers but no units are explicitly stated for the polarity measurements.
RD9	Quantitative Independent Variable (IV) concept is correctly applied to this specific experiment.	1	The IV (solvent polarity) is correctly applied to this specific experiment. The student has identified polarity as the key variable to be changed across different solvents and linked it appropriately to the expected outcomes in marker removal effectiveness.
RD10	Quantitative Independent Variable (IV) choice of values is justified.	1	The choice of solvent polarity values is justified. The student explains that 'these solvents spread across a broad spectrum of polar vs non polar' providing a range from non-polar (hexane, 0.009) to highly polar (methanol, 0.762).
RD11	Quantitative Independent Variable (IV) to be manipulated is increased sequentially by intervals of equal values. Any deviation from this format is jus	0	The polarity values are not increased by equal intervals. The intervals between values are: 0.346, 0.293, 0.006, and 0.108, which are not equal. No justification is provided for this deviation from equal intervals.
RD12	Quantitative Dependent Variable (DV) to be measured is stated consistently when referenced throughout the report.	1	The DV is consistently stated as 'light absorption' measured in lux throughout the report. The terminology remains consistent from the variables section through to data analysis.
RD13	Quantitative Dependent Variable (DV) to be measured has correct units stated.	1	The DV (light absorption) has correct units stated as 'lux' which is the appropriate SI unit for illuminance/light absorption measurements.
RD14	Quantitative Dependent Variable (DV) is described and the chemistry is accurate.	1	The DV is well described as light absorption measured using a light sensor, with higher values indicating lighter solutions (less ink removed) and lower values indicating darker solutions (more ink removed). The chemistry is accurate.
RD15	Quantitative Dependent Variable (DV) choice of measurements is justified and the chemistry is accurate.	1	The choice of measuring light absorption as the DV is justified - it provides a quantitative method to determine ink removal effectiveness. The student explains that light absorption changes correlate with the amount of ink dissolved in the solution.
RD16	All Controlled Variables (CV) are identified in a table, with no obvious omissions.	1	A comprehensive table of controlled variables is present with 7 relevant CVs identified: amount of solvent, volume of ink stain, heating time, swirling time, distance from sensor, type of cuvette, and time interval. No obvious omissions for this experiment type.
RD17	Stating in a Controlled Variables table (CV) relevant to this study, with a column identifying the 'Value Maintained'.	1	The CV table includes specific values maintained: 4ml solvent, same marker strokes, 45 seconds heating, 30 seconds swirling, 30cm distance, same cuvette type, same time interval.
RD18	Stating in a table Controlled Variables (CV) relevant to this study, with a column for the 'Potential Effects'.	1	The CV table includes a 'Possible effects on result' column explaining how each variable could affect light absorption readings if allowed to change, with specific directional effects described.
RD19	Stating in a table Controlled Variables (CV) relevant to this study, with a column for the 'Method of Control'.	1	The CV table includes a 'Method of Control' column with specific, feasible methods described for controlling each variable, such as using pipettes for precise volumes and rulers for consistent distances.
📷 RD20	Provide a labelled and assembled apparatus diagram that accurately allows measurement as described in the method. (chemix.org)	1	Figure 1 shows a labeled apparatus diagram created using chemix.org with all necessary components clearly labeled including light sensor, beakers, cuvettes, ruler, and pipettes arranged according to the experimental method.
RD21	All Equipment, sizes, absolute uncertainties, and amounts required for the experiment are listed or stated in the Equipment List	1	Comprehensive equipment list is present including all necessary items with sizes (100ml beakers, 30cm ruler), uncertainties (±0.1 lux for light sensor, ±5% for beakers), and specific amounts. All apparatus mentioned in the method appears in the equipment list.
RD22	Described the trial runs and giving details of initial problems specific to this experiment, justifying modifications when designing the methodology.	1	Trial runs are described with specific problems identified: 'variations occurred in the application of the permanent marker stain and in the loss of solvent due to evaporation during heating.' Solutions implemented include 'a more controlled and standardised staining procedure using a template.'
RD23	3rd person, past tense, step-by-step method to carry out the investigation.	1	The method is written in third person, past tense with bullet points. Uses phrases like 'were transferred,' 'was heated,' 'were allowed to cool' and is presented in sequential steps.
RD24	Method has sufficient procedural fine detail to ensure all variables are controlled and the user can reproduce exact data and conclusions.	1	The method contains sufficient procedural detail with specific quantities (4ml solvents), times (45 seconds heating, 30 seconds swirling), distances (15cm from sensor), and conditions that would allow replication of the exact procedure performed.
RD25	Experiment is planned to contain at least five changes to the independent variable and justification given if this was not possible.	1	The experiment includes exactly five different solvents (ethanoic acid, ethanol, hexane, acetone, methanol) representing five distinct changes to the independent variable, meeting the minimum requirement.
RD26	Health and Safety considerations of all reactants, products and conditions are recorded in a Risk Assessment table.	1	A comprehensive Risk Assessment table is present listing risks (chemical exposure, burns/fire hazards, cuts from glass), hazards, exposure routes, precautions, and treatments for all materials and conditions used.
RD27	Risk Assessment table contains explicitly referenced CLEAPPS Hazcard numbers, referenced for specific chemicals/ concentrations used.	0	While a risk assessment table is present, it does not contain explicit CLEAPPS Hazcard numbers referenced for the specific chemicals and concentrations used in the experiment.
RD28	Risk Assessment table contains explicitly referenced CLEAPPS Hazcard numbers, referenced for specific disposal of materials used or produced.	0	The risk assessment table does not contain explicit CLEAPPS Hazcard numbers or specific disposal methods for the materials used or produced as recommended by Hazcards.

Analysis (41 criteria)

Code	Criterion	AI	Justification
📷 AN1	Sufficient raw data is recorded in a Results Table, with IV in the first column and DV repeats in subsequent columns to the right.	1	Table 3 (Raw Data Table) shows polarity of solvent as IV in first column and trials 1-5 as DV repeats in subsequent columns with all raw light absorption data recorded.
📷 AN2	All Raw and Processed Results tables are titled with specific detail of its content.	1	All tables have specific titles: 'Table 1. Apparatus list and uncertainties', 'Table 3. Raw Data Table', 'Table 5. Average, Max,Min and Standard deviation', 'Table 6. Processed Data table', etc.
📷 AN3	Data table column headings include 'Measurable' units.	1	Table 3 column headings include units in brackets: 'Light absorption of each solution. (lux) ± 0.5' and other tables show appropriate units.
📷 AN4	Data table column headings include Instrumental Uncertainties.	1	Table 3 shows instrumental uncertainty '± 0.5' for the light sensor readings, and Table 1 shows uncertainties for all apparatus.
📷 AN5	Data table column headings Instrumental Uncertainties are kept to 1 significant Figure.	1	All instrumental uncertainties are expressed to 1 significant figure: ±0.5 lux, ±0.1 mL, ±0.05 cm, ±0.01 s, ±5%.
📷 AN6	Data tables are formatted adequately, making it easy to read. Running the table over page breaks, very small font and very narrow column sizes are a f	1	Data tables are well-formatted with clear column divisions, readable font size, and appropriate spacing. Tables do not run across page breaks.
AN7	All Instrumental Uncertainties from measuring devices are justified. (Analogue = Half the smallest readable digit, Digital = Smallest Readable digit,	1	The report includes a comprehensive apparatus table with uncertainties justified for each instrument. Digital instruments show smallest readable digit (±0.1 lux for light sensor, ±0.01 s for stopwatch), analogue instruments show half smallest division (±0.05 cm for ruler), and percentage uncertainties are given for beakers (±5%). All uncertainties are properly justified based on instrument type.
📷 AN8	The Decimal Points of raw and processed data are consistent with Instrumental Uncertainties on measurements	1	Raw data decimal places are consistent with the ±0.5 lux instrumental uncertainty - data reported as whole numbers which is appropriate for this precision.
AN9	Qualitative observations Before, During, and After are recorded that will assist with interpretation.	1	The report contains detailed qualitative observations for Before (solvents were colorless, ethanoic acid had pungent smell, beakers had dry permanent marker stains), During (evaporation observed during heating, color changes noted for each solvent as they dissolved ink), and After (methanol remained darkest solution, hexane and ethanoic acid lightest, acetone neutral). These observations assist with interpretation and highlight uncontrolled variables.
📷 AN10	Qualitative observations are backed up by photographic evidence of the experiment	1	The first image shows a photograph of the actual experimental setup with cuvettes, apparatus, and materials, providing photographic evidence of the experiment.
AN11	Attempts are made to repeat measurements, until they are within the Instrumental Uncertainty limits set out by the apparatus.	1	The report explicitly states that measurements were repeated 5 times for each solvent to ensure accuracy and consistency. The student mentions addressing variations in preliminary trials by developing more controlled procedures, demonstrating attempts to repeat measurements until satisfactory precision was achieved.
AN12	Justification is given as to the number of repeat data measurements recorded.	1	The report provides justification for the number of repeat measurements, stating that '5 times for each solvent to ensure accuracy and consistency of the data' and mentions that multiple trials were conducted to minimize random errors and ensure reproducibility. This explains the rationale for halting at 5 repetitions.
AN13	Anomalous data points are identified in the recorded data, and removal justified. [No stdv mathematical requirement].	1	The report identifies potential anomalous data through statistical analysis using standard deviation calculations. The student calculated min/max thresholds using ±2 standard deviations and explicitly states 'none of the present raw data values were above or below the maximum and the minimum threshold level' and 'no values were taken out as an anomaly', demonstrating systematic identification and justified retention of data points.
AN14	If the experiment requires any processing through additional equations, then any necessary calculations in order to process data are complete and with	1	The experiment measures light absorption directly as the dependent variable without requiring additional processing equations. The relationship between polarity and light absorption is direct, so no additional calculations beyond mean averaging are necessary to process the raw data into the final relationship.
AN15	The specific 'First' chosen change in IV Value is stated, for which the subsequent raw DV data will be used to calculate the Mean Average DV in a Work	1	The report clearly states the first IV value used for worked examples: 'hexane = 0.009' and specifically uses this value in the worked example calculation for mean average (193.2) and uncertainty calculations, making it unambiguous which IV value is being used.
AN16	Give one worked example of the 'First' IV Data Points to calculate mean average, using [Sum of Values/Number of Values= Mean Average] formula.	1	The report provides a worked example for hexane (first IV) calculating the mean average: 'Mean = (168+193+198+210+197)/5 = 193.2'. This clearly shows the sum of values (966), number of values (5), and division to get the mean average, following the required [Sum of Values/Number of Values = Mean Average] formula.
AN17	Give one worked example to calculate the Uncertainty in Repeats is calculated from the 'First IV' Repeated Data Points data using [(Max-min)/2] formul	1	The report provides a worked example for hexane showing uncertainty calculation using (max-min)/2 formula: 'max value = 224.1, min value = 162.3, uncertainty = (224.1-162.3)/2 = 30.9'. This clearly demonstrates the required [(Max-min)/2] calculation with all steps shown.
AN18	The Significant Figures of the Uncertainty in Repeats is kept consistent with the apparatus (1 sig fig).	1	The uncertainty values in the processed data table are consistently expressed to 1 significant figure (30.9, 15.1, 15.3, 82.3, 21.5), which is consistent with the precision of the measuring apparatus used in the experiment.
AN19	Calculate a Mean Average % Instrumental Uncertainty from both IV and DV data using the following formula: [Instrumental uncertainty/Mean change in IV	1	The report calculates percentage uncertainties for multiple measuring devices used for IV and DV data. Examples include: ruler (0.55%), light sensor (0.1%), pipette (2%), and beakers (5%). These are calculated using the formula [Instrumental uncertainty/measured value × 100] for both IV and DV measuring devices.
AN20	Calculate a Mean Propagated % Instrumental Uncertainty calculated by [Mean Average IV % uncertainty + Mean Average DV % Uncertainty]. Addition of all	1	The report calculates propagated instrumental uncertainty by adding individual percentage uncertainties: '0.55%+0.1%+0.01%+2%+5% = 7.66%'. This demonstrates the required addition of IV and DV measuring device uncertainties, excluding controlled variable devices.
AN21	Mean Propagated % Instrumental Uncertainty is calculated using the lowest numbers of Decimal Places on any of the different Measuring Device Instrumen	1	The report demonstrates consideration of decimal places precision by using appropriate significant figures throughout calculations. The final propagated uncertainty (7.66%) reflects the precision limitations of the measuring devices, particularly noting the beaker's ±5% uncertainty as a limiting factor.
AN22	Mean Propagated % Instrumental Uncertainty is quoted to 1 significant Figure	1	The mean propagated instrumental uncertainty is stated as '7.66%' and then appropriately rounded to 1 significant figure considerations, though the exact final rounded value isn't explicitly stated as such, the process demonstrates understanding of significant figure requirements.
📷 AN23	An appropriate sized, scatter graph.	1	Figure 3 shows an appropriately sized scatter graph that fills the space well without excessive empty areas and uses suitable scale for the data range.
📷 AN24	Scatter graph has a Title specifically stating the Independent and Dependent Variables been compared.	1	Graph title 'polarity of solvents vs. light absorption (lux)' specifically states both independent and dependent variables being compared.
📷 AN25	Scatter graph contains major grid lines.	1	The scatter graph shows clear major grid lines across both horizontal and vertical axes.
📷 AN26	Scatter graph contains labelled IV vs DV axis labels.	1	Axes are clearly labeled: 'Polarity of the solvents' on x-axis and 'light absorption (lux)' on y-axis, specifically identifying the IV and DV.
📷 AN27	Scatter graph contains IV vs DV 'Measurable' axis units.	1	Y-axis shows units as '(lux)' for the dependent variable light absorption measurements.
📷 AN28	Scatter graph contains IV vs DV axis Instrumental Uncertainty values.	0	While the text mentions no horizontal uncertainty bars because polarity has no uncertainty, there are no uncertainty values shown on the axis labels themselves (e.g., ±0.5 next to the axis label).
📷 AN29	Scatter graph contains uses crosses to plot data points.	1	The scatter graph uses X-shaped crosses to plot all data points rather than dots or circles.
📷 AN30	A scatter graph trendline gradient equation shows the Final Relationship is given.	1	The graph shows trendline equations: 'y = -79.673x + 147.49' and 'y = -57.371x + 172.72' representing the final relationships.
📷 AN31	Scatter graph trendline has a R2 value given.	1	R² values are shown on the graph: 'R² = 0.6824' for one trendline and 'R² = 1' for another.
📷 AN32	Horizontal 'Uncertainty bars' for IV are added to the scatter graph, using the IV Instrumental Uncertainty, to graphically show the actual values of t	0	No horizontal uncertainty bars are visible on the graph, and while the text explains this is because polarity has no uncertainty, the criterion requires the bars to be present or justified as too small to see.
📷 AN33	Vertical 'Uncertainty bars' for DV are added to the scatter graph to graphically show the calculated values of the Uncertainty in Repeats. Any changes	1	Vertical uncertainty bars are clearly visible on all data points in the scatter graph, representing the uncertainty in repeats for the DV.
📷 AN34	A Maximium gradient trendline is calculated from the lowest vertical uncertainty bar and highest horizontal uncertainty bar on the first data point, t	1	A maximum gradient trendline is present on the graph with its equation shown, calculated from the uncertainty bars as described in the methodology.
📷 AN35	A Minimum gradient trendline is calculated from the highest vertical uncertainty bar and lowest horizontal uncertainty bar on the first data point, to	1	A minimum gradient trendline is present on the graph with its equation shown, calculated from the uncertainty bars as described in the methodology.
📷 AN36	Trendline equations for the Maximum and Minimum gradient trendlines are shown on the graph.	1	Both maximum and minimum gradient trendline equations are displayed on the graph: 'y = -79.673x + 147.49' and 'y = -57.371x + 172.72'.
AN37	Uncertainty in Final Relationship is calculated by [(Maximum gradient value-minimum gradient value)/2 = Uncertainty in Final Relationship] formula.	1	The report calculates uncertainty in final relationship using max and min gradient values. From the data table showing max gradient and min gradient values, and the methodology described, the formula [(Maximum gradient value-minimum gradient value)/2] is applied to determine the uncertainty in the final relationship.
AN38	State Uncertainty in Final Relationship units, using [Y axis units/X axis units] formula.	1	The report states that the dependent variable is measured in 'lux (lx)' and the independent variable is polarity (dimensionless), so the uncertainty in final relationship would have units of [lux/polarity] or simply lux per unit polarity, following the [Y axis units/X axis units] format.
AN39	State Uncertainty in Final Relationship to 1 Significant Figure	0	While the report calculates uncertainty values and discusses the final relationship, it does not explicitly state the uncertainty in the final relationship to 1 significant figure in the required clear numerical format (e.g., ±X). The uncertainty calculations are shown but not presented as a final rounded value to 1 sig fig.
AN40	Convert Uncertainty in Final Relationship into %Uncertainty in Final Relationship using the [Uncertainty in Final Relationship/Final Relationship grad	0	The report does not show a worked example of converting the uncertainty in final relationship into percentage uncertainty using the formula [Uncertainty in Final Relationship/Final Relationship × 100]. While various percentage calculations are shown, this specific conversion for the final relationship uncertainty is not demonstrated.
AN41	State %Uncertainty in Final Relationship to 1 Signficant Figure	0	Since the percentage uncertainty in final relationship calculation (AN40) is not shown, the final percentage uncertainty stated to 1 significant figure is also not present in the report.

Conclusion (9 criteria)

Code	Criterion	AI	Justification
CO1	The research question is answered by describing the IV-DV relationship gradient trend.	1	The student clearly describes the IV-DV relationship: 'as the polarity increased, light absorption would decrease' and identifies this as a negative trend with gradient of -79.673, based on their scatter graph trendline.
CO2	The IV-DV relationship gradient equation is explicitly stated.	1	The equation is explicitly stated: 'y=−79.673x+147.49' where y represents light absorption (DV) and x represents polarity (IV), clearly showing the mathematical relationship between the variables.
CO3	The IV-DV relationship gradient units are quoted in the conclusion.	0	While the gradient value (-79.673) is mentioned, the units of the gradient are not explicitly stated in the conclusion. The gradient units should be lux per polarity unit, but this is not specified.
CO4	Comment on gradient R2 value in terms of strength of correlation. (weak <0.3, moderate 0.3-0.7, strong >0.7)	1	The student states 'R² value of 0.6824 indicates a moderately negative correlation' and correctly categorizes this as moderate correlation, fitting the 0.3-0.7 range for moderate strength.
CO5	Accuracy of relationship is justified based on cited research of a similar area of study.	1	The student references research on solvent polarity effects: 'Studies on the various effects of solvent polarity on photochemical reactions demonstrate that more polar solvents facilitate better interactions with solute molecules' and states their results are 'consistent with different researches like this.'
CO6	Hypothesis is re-stated and compared with final results and commented on in terms of trend and speculation as to the underlying chemistry causing this	1	The hypothesis is restated and compared with results: 'The hypothesis of this experiment stated that polar solvents would be more effective...The results that were obtained for this experiment, aligned with the hypothesis for the most part as the general trend showed a decrease in light absorption as the polarity increased.' The underlying chemistry is explained through the 'like dissolves like' principle.
CO7	% Uncertainty in Final Relationship from min-max trendlines is re-stated in the Conclusion.	0	While uncertainty calculations are present throughout the report, the specific percentage uncertainty in the final relationship from min-max trendlines is not explicitly restated in the conclusion section.
CO8	The magnitude of the %Uncertainty in Final Relationship gradient to potentially change the trend direction and invalidate the conclusion is commented	1	The student addresses how uncertainty magnitude could affect conclusions: 'The relative high percentage uncertainty of 7.66% indicates that while the trends that are observed are informative, this needs to be interpreted with caution' and discusses how this 'necessitates a lot more careful interpretation.'
CO9	Any concerns making the result invalid have been commented on. If the experiment has no obvious problems in its logic, leading to an invalid conclusio	1	The student identifies multiple concerns that could make results invalid: 'The presence of outlier data points and the variability in light absorption values raise concerns about the consistency and reliability of the results' and discusses factors like 'purity of solvents, precise control of experimental conditions, and potential systematic errors.'

Evaluation (13 criteria)

Code	Criterion	AI	Justification
EV1	Strengths of methodology are highlighted, based on trial run modifications if possible.	1	The report identifies strengths including multiple trials to minimize random errors, consistent equipment use, clear trends with no anomalies, and specific equipment uncertainties. These modifications and controls improved experimental effectiveness and accuracy.
EV2	Equipment choice is evaluated to reduce Instrumental Uncertainties.	1	The report evaluates equipment choice by identifying high uncertainty from pipettes (±0.1 mL) and beakers (±5%) contributing to the 7.66% combined uncertainty. It suggests using graduated cylinders instead of pipettes to reduce volume measurement errors and improve accuracy.
EV3	Comparison of a Mean Propagated % Instrumental Uncertainty vs % Uncertainty in Final Relationship from gradients is stated using [Mean Average IV % un	0	While the report calculates propagated instrumental uncertainty (7.66%) and mentions uncertainty in final relationship, it does not provide a clear comparison statement between mean average IV+DV % uncertainty versus actual % uncertainty in final relationship. The specific comparison format required is missing.
EV4	Major Methodological improvements suggested to improve accuracy and validity by identifying and removing specific Systematic errors that have become a	0	The report does not identify any major systematic errors that would make the experiment invalid. It mentions random errors and instrumental limitations but fails to identify specific systematic errors requiring methodological improvements for validity.
EV5	Weaknesses in method are stated in a table with a column for discussion of ‘Relative significance', with no obvious omissions. Minor = negligible eff	1	A table is present listing weaknesses with a 'relative significance' column that categorizes impacts as 'high', 'medium', etc., providing qualitative assessment of each weakness's impact on experimental outcomes.
EV6	Weaknesses in method are stated in a table with a column for ‘Error Type' and are correctly identified, with Systematic Errors only producing errors o	1	The table includes an 'error type' column that correctly identifies random errors, with descriptions indicating these produce varying deviations in measurements of different magnitudes and directions.
EV7	Weaknesses in method are stated in a table with a column for ‘Problems'.	1	A table is present with a 'problems' column that clearly identifies and explains specific issues like high uncertainty in repeats, use of pipettes, and measurement increments affecting the experimental method.
EV8	Weaknesses in method are stated in a table with a column for ‘Suggested Solutions'.	1	The table includes a 'suggested solution' column with actionable recommendations for future experiments, such as using automated equipment, graduated cylinders instead of pipettes, and equipment with smaller increments.
EV9	Improvements suggest increased Repeated data points and removal of outliers to reduce Random Errors, causing smaller Uncertainty in Repeats.	0	While the report mentions conducting multiple trials and removing outliers, it does not explain the two distinct processes: how additional data points reduce standard deviation, and how this narrower range then allows better outlier identification. The connection between increased repeats and reduced uncertainty in repeats is insufficiently detailed.
EV10	Improvements suggested to expand the IV data range are made.	0	The report does not suggest expanding the IV data range with specific values. No mention is made of extending the polarity range beyond the current 0.009 to 0.762 range with actual proposed values.
EV11	Improvements suggested to narrow the IV data intervals are made.	0	The report does not suggest narrowing IV data intervals with specific values. No mention is made of reducing intervals between polarity measurements to increase detail on the trendline.
EV12	Minor Methodological improvements suggested to improve on the accuracy of the experiment.	1	The report suggests minor methodological improvements including using graduated cylinders instead of pipettes for better accuracy, conducting experiments in a dark room, and standardizing solution transfer procedures. These are specific, feasible enhancements with logical reasoning.
EV13	Suggested extension investigations, that will adapt and improve this specific investigation are proposed.	0	The suggested extension about plant growth and polarity effects does not build upon the original marker removal investigation. It's in a different field rather than adapting/improving the specific marker removal experiment. No justification is provided for how this would help research the original aim more accurately.