IA Playbook
Turn your scenario, design evidence, and testing into a clean, defensible project record.
Use this guide to keep the client need, success criteria, implementation, and testing connected so the product reads as one coherent development story.
Computer Science IA
See what each criterion measures, how many marks it carries, and what stronger evidence usually looks like.
This is Marksy's independently written criteria explanation, not an official IB publication.
How clearly the problem, client needs, success criteria, and development plan are established.
Stronger evidence
The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.
Early-stage evidence
Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address planning, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
How clearly the design explains the proposed product, data, processes, and implementation route.
Stronger evidence
The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.
Early-stage evidence
Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address solution overview, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
How convincingly the product demonstrates computational thinking, technical complexity, and documented development.
Stronger evidence
The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.
Early-stage evidence
Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address development, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
How well the completed product works and how clearly its structure supports maintenance or extension.
Stronger evidence
The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.
Early-stage evidence
Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address functionality and extensibility of product, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
How rigorously the solution is tested and evaluated with the client and success criteria.
Stronger evidence
The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.
Early-stage evidence
Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address evaluation, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for planning. |
| 1-2 | Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address planning, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported. |
| 3 | Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained. |
| 4-5 | The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps. |
| 6 | The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for solution overview. |
| 1-2 | Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address solution overview, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported. |
| 3 | Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained. |
| 4-5 | The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps. |
| 6 | The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for development. |
| 1-3 | Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address development, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported. |
| 4-6 | Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained. |
| 7-9 | The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps. |
| 10-12 | The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for functionality and extensibility of product. |
| 1 | Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address functionality and extensibility of product, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported. |
| 2 | Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained. |
| 3 | The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps. |
| 4 | The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for evaluation. |
| 1-2 | Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address evaluation, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported. |
| 3 | Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained. |
| 4-5 | The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps. |
| 6 | The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly. |
Did You Know? Most weak drafts fail from sequence chaos, not lack of ideas.
Step 1
State the client need clearly and translate it into measurable success criteria before building anything.
Step 2
Record the task list, design overview, and test plan so the development path is easy to follow.
Step 3
Show why your techniques and tools are suitable, and make the source of every technique clear.
Step 4
Use the video and test evidence to judge functionality, extensibility, and how well the product meets the criteria.
Did You Know?
Marksy uses independently written criteria guidance to flag missing documentation and help you tighten the link between implementation and evaluation. Every criterion mark is an estimate, not an official result. The result includes an estimated mark for every criterion, evidence from your draft, and the changes to make first. Your final mark may differ after teacher assessment or external moderation.
Instant Grading Results
See where your score is now, not just where it could be.
Criterion-By-Criterion Feedback
See the estimated mark, evidence, and next step for every assessment criterion.
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.