Use this guide as a working review for Debugging Code for University Submission. Begin with “Reproduce the failure”, then move through “Reduce the problem” and the remaining stages against your own brief. The aim is to leave a clear trail from the requirement to the technical evidence and final explanation, rather than relying on a generic submission checklist.
Reproduce the failure
A practical way to handle “Reproduce the failure” is to create a small, inspectable output first. Compare it with the rubric, record any dependency or source you relied on, and only then expand the work. This prevents the final report from becoming disconnected from the actual technical process.
Use a reader-first check: could someone who did not build the project understand the requirement, the action you took and the evidence that supports the outcome? If not, add the missing context now rather than trying to reconstruct it at the end of the assignment.
Reduce the problem
Treat “Reduce the problem” as a decision point rather than a box to tick. Write down what could go wrong, what another student or marker would need to reproduce, and which assumption should be tested. That makes the transition to “Inspect state and assumptions” much easier to justify.
Keep the evidence proportionate to the marks. Screenshots, code excerpts, tables or references should prove something specific; they should not be added simply to make the report longer. If this stage changes the implementation, record what changed and why so the final reflection is based on evidence.
Inspect state and assumptions
A practical way to handle “Inspect state and assumptions” is to create a small, inspectable output first. Compare it with the rubric, record any dependency or source you relied on, and only then expand the work. This prevents the final report from becoming disconnected from the actual technical process.
Keep the evidence proportionate to the marks. Screenshots, code excerpts, tables or references should prove something specific; they should not be added simply to make the report longer. If this stage changes the implementation, record what changed and why so the final reflection is based on evidence.
Add targeted tests
A practical way to handle “Add targeted tests” is to create a small, inspectable output first. Compare it with the rubric, record any dependency or source you relied on, and only then expand the work. This prevents the final report from becoming disconnected from the actual technical process.
Use a reader-first check: could someone who did not build the project understand the requirement, the action you took and the evidence that supports the outcome? If not, add the missing context now rather than trying to reconstruct it at the end of the assignment.
Document the fix
For “Document the fix”, work directly from the wording of your own assessment. Note the exact action verbs, required files and marking signals that relate to this stage. Then decide what concrete evidence will demonstrate completion before moving on to “Reproduce the failure”.
Keep the evidence proportionate to the marks. Screenshots, code excerpts, tables or references should prove something specific; they should not be added simply to make the report longer. If this stage changes the implementation, record what changed and why so the final reflection is based on evidence.
Final check for Debugging Code for University Submission
Return to the first section, compare the finished work with each rubric row and verify that every important claim is supported by code, a test, a result, a source or a clearly reasoned explanation. Remove evidence that does not help the reader understand or assess the work.