IA Playbook
Connect a key concept, supporting documents, and business tools to a focused argument.
Use this guide to keep the research question sharp, the evidence relevant, and the evaluation tied to the rubric.
Did You Know? The easiest score jumps usually come from explicitly naming what the criterion rewards and supporting it with direct evidence.
Examiner Focus
To what extent does the student effectively integrate the analysis of the connection between the key concept and the organization under study throughout the internal assessment?
Top-Band Move
The student effectively integrates the analysis of the connection between the key concept and the organization under study throughout the internal assessment.
Common Penalty
The student demonstrates knowledge of the key concept.
Examiner Focus
To what extent does the student select three to five relevant supporting documents that address the research question in appropriate depth and breadth?
Top-Band Move
There are three to five supporting documents that are relevant, sufficiently in-depth and provide a range of ideas and views.
Common Penalty
There are only one or two, or more than five, supporting documents **or** they are of marginal relevance.
Examiner Focus
To what extent does the student effectively select and apply business management tools and theories that are relevant to the research question?
Top-Band Move
The business management tools and theories are effectively selected and applied with clear relevance to the research question.
Common Penalty
There is a limited selection and application of business management tools and theories **or** these business management tools and theories are not relevant to the research question.
Examiner Focus
To what extent does the student effectively select and use data from the supporting documents in their analysis and evaluation of the research question?
Top-Band Move
The selection and use of data from the supporting documents is effective, leading to a thorough analysis and evaluation of the research question. There is a sustained integration of ideas with consideration of the assumptions underpinning the arguments and implications.
Common Penalty
There is limited selection and use of data from the supporting documents with no analysis and evaluation of the research question.
Examiner Focus
To what extent is the student's conclusion consistent with the evidence presented and explicitly answers the research question?
Top-Band Move
Conclusions are consistent with the evidence presented and explicitly answer the research question.
Common Penalty
Conclusions are inconsistent with the evidence presented, or conclusions are superficial.
Examiner Focus
To what extent is the student's research project organized using an appropriate structure?
Top-Band Move
Appropriate structure.
Common Penalty
Limited structure.
Examiner Focus
To what extent is the student's business research project effectively presented with the use of required elements including a title page, an accurate table of contents, appropriate headings and sub-headings, and numbered pages?
Top-Band Move
All of the required elements of a well-presented research project are included.
Common Penalty
One or more of the required elements of a well-presented research project is missing.
Criteria point markbands to benchmark where your current draft sits and what a stronger band demands.
Points 0
Either the work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below **or** the key concept identified is neither change, creativity, ethics nor sustainability.
Points 1
The student demonstrates knowledge of the key concept.
Points 2
The student describes the connection between the key concept and the organization under study.
Points 3
The student analyses the connection between the key concept and the organization under study.
Points 4
The student partially integrates the analysis of the connection between the key concept and the organization under study in the internal assessment.
Points 5
The student effectively integrates the analysis of the connection between the key concept and the organization under study throughout the internal assessment.
Points 0
The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1
There are only one or two, or more than five, supporting documents **or** they are of marginal relevance.
Points 2
There are three to five supporting documents that are generally relevant but some lack depth.
Points 3
There are three to five supporting documents that are relevant and sufficiently in-depth.
Points 4
There are three to five supporting documents that are relevant, sufficiently in-depth and provide a range of ideas and views.
Points 0
The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1
There is a limited selection and application of business management tools and theories **or** these business management tools and theories are not relevant to the research question.
Points 2
There are some business management tools and theories selected and applied to the research question. Their relevance to the research question is superficial.
Points 3
The business management tools and theories are adequately selected and applied to the research question. Their relevance to the research question is not always clear.
Points 4
The business management tools and theories are effectively selected and applied with clear relevance to the research question.
Points 0
The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1
There is limited selection and use of data from the supporting documents with no analysis and evaluation of the research question.
Points 2
The selection and use of data from the supporting documents is superficial, leading to limited analysis and evaluation of the research question.
Points 3
The selection and use of data from the supporting documents is adequate with some analysis and evaluation of the research question.
Points 4
The selection and use of data from the supporting documents is sufficient, leading to a mostly effective analysis and evaluation of the research question with some integration of ideas.
Points 5
The selection and use of data from the supporting documents is effective, leading to a thorough analysis and evaluation of the research question. There is a sustained integration of ideas with consideration of the assumptions underpinning the arguments and implications.
Points 0
The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1
Conclusions are inconsistent with the evidence presented, or conclusions are superficial.
Points 2
Some conclusions are consistent with the evidence presented.
Points 3
Conclusions are consistent with the evidence presented and explicitly answer the research question.
Points 0
The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1
Limited structure.
Points 2
Appropriate structure.
Points 0
The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1
One or more of the required elements of a well-presented research project is missing.
Points 2
All of the required elements of a well-presented research project are included.
Did You Know? Most weak drafts fail from sequence chaos, not lack of ideas.
Step 1
Choose one concept and keep returning to it so the analysis stays aligned with the rubric.
Step 2
Select three to five documents that are relevant, varied, and rich enough to support the investigation.
Step 3
Use business frameworks only where they help answer the research question rather than filling space.
Step 4
Make the conclusion answer the question directly and tie back to the evidence you actually used.
Did You Know?
Marksy grades your draft against IB criteria, gives you criterion-level feedback, and shows exactly what to improve before final submission. Marksy is built to grade faster with criterion-level precision, so you can improve before final submission.
Instant Grading Results
See where your score is now, not just where it could be.
Criterion-Level Feedback
Marksy explains feedback by rubric criterion, so revision is targeted.
Action List To Improve
Get concrete next edits instead of vague "improve analysis" advice.
Confidence And Integrity Signals
Review flagged sections and strengthen authenticity before submission.