Verification is a rapidly changing field. Technological breakthroughs and geopolitical shifts alike significantly affect the relevance, feasibility, and effectiveness of different verification models. In this module, you will develop the future-proof skill of discernment: learning how to discern the relative feasibility of any mechanism using research strategies and critical analysis.
Intuition Check
Return to your ranking from the beginning of the course. Choose one mechanism for which later evidence in Module 2 changed your view. Write brief answers to the following in your notebook:
- What heuristics did you initially use?
- What evidence changed your judgment?
- What question should you have asked earlier?
Pay attention to how your heuristics changed: where was your intuition accurate, and where was it off?
Four Metrics of Feasibility
“Is this mechanism feasible?” is usually too vague to answer beyond an initial intuition check, like you did in 1.0.2. Feasibility depends on myriad factors, including what the mechanism must verify, whom it must cover, where it would operate, how soon it must be deployed, and what level of performance is required. A serious feasibility assessment should answer four connected questions, which you first met at the beginning of Module 2:
Drill Bench
The drill bench gathers the short exercises from modules 3 and 4 into one place: an evasion bench, a regime bench, and a position bench, all of it preparation for the capstone. Work one step at a time: commit to an answer, read why, then continue.
Written output · 4.1
Defended-Ranking Memo
Produce the defended-ranking memo: a recommended mechanism portfolio for one named policy goal, with residual blind spots and their owners — the artifact the 4.2 capstone receives. Defend the ranking against both your own initial guesses and the field’s published ratings.
- Budget
- about 900 words
- Reader
- Whoever acts on the 4.2 capstone — the portfolio is handed forward, not filed.
Judged on
- Judged against the rubric

