Total Points: 200
Format: Canvas Quiz
Time Limit: None (Multiple submissions allowed before the deadline; your final attempt is graded).
Overview
Throughout the semester, you have acted as an auditor monitoring a brand’s digital footprint. For this Final Project Exam, you are officially stepping into the executive seat of a Social Media Manager.
You are entirely responsible for justifying strategic choices, filtering raw technical tools (HubSpot) through deep human intuition, and pitching an immediate operational response to a live, real-world cultural event.
Critical Submission Guidelines
- The Live Date Filter: Your chosen current event in Question 2 must have occurred no earlier than Tuesday, July 7, 2026. Outdated events will result in an immediate zero for that section.
- Zero-Fluff Standard: All text entries must contain explicit references to your specific Brand Liaison and course concepts. Generic, AI-sounding corporate "word salad" or safe platitudes will be flagged immediately and face aggressive point deductions.
Grading Rubric (200 Points Total)
| Criterion / Question | Points | A-Level (Exceptional) | C-Level (Average) | F-Level (Poor / Missing) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1: Certification vs. Reality Filter | 50 pts | Explicitly names a HubSpot rule. Details a brilliant "But..." conflict where that rule directly compromises your brand's unique voice. Identifies a clear, logical business benefit for breaking it. | Identifies a rule, but the brand conflict is highly generic or surface-level. The proposed managerial adjustment lacks a concrete business or reputational justification. | No specific skill identified; response reads like a bland textbook summary or an unedited AI generation. |
| Q2: The Live Strategic Pivot | 30 pts | Links to a fully active URL of an event occurring no earlier than July 7, 2026. Proves immediate relevance with a crisp, logically sound operational pitch. | The event is relevant but pushes past the 2026 date window. The operational justification is vague, passive, or hypothetical. | The link is broken, missing, or completely unrelated to the brand space. No justification provided. |
| Q3: Brief Pt. 1 - Post Blueprint | 25 pts | Outlines an immediately ready mock post. Must explicitly include: the targeted platform, a clear visual execution layout, and exact draft caption text wrapped inside quotation marks. | The draft is present but missing one of the three mandatory structural pillars (platform, specific visual description, or exact caption text). | Proposes broad, passive advice ("we should post about the event") rather than an actual drafted post blueprint. |
| Q4: Brief Pt. 2 - Strategic Alignment | 25 pts | Proves strategic fit by citing a specific historical pattern or post from your 5 Pulse Reports AND details exactly why this move would be a catastrophic mistake for your top competitor. | Explains the brand voice alignment conceptually, but fails to cite concrete tracking history from the semester, or leaves the competitive analysis highly generic. | Gives a superficial response ("it fits our vibe") that entirely lacks semester tracking evidence or competitive contrast. |
| Q5: Brief Pt. 3 - Visibility Risk | 25 pts | Maps a worst-case scenario public risk with a clear mitigation plan AND applies visibility frameworks (AEO sentiment, organic trust, or visibility with restraint) to protect long-term brand equity. | Identifies a basic public relations risk, but the answer lacks reference to the digital ecosystem or treats algorithmic impact as an afterthought. | Fails to recognize any inherent brand-safety risks, or ignores the course frameworks on visibility and human trust signals. |
| Q6: Brief Pt. 4 - Human Defense | 25 pts | Accurately explains how the 10-day timeline breaks AI data models AND uses concrete insights from your 10 weeks of brand tracking to prove why a generic prompt tool would fail. | Mentions AI limitations superficially, but relies on broad generalizations about software rather than pointing to specific data or brand-nuance gaps. | No defense provided; response reads exactly like the generic corporate fluff an automated, un-audited AI model would generate. |
| Q7: Mandatory AI Disclosure | 20 pts | Clears compliance. Either explicitly confirms 100% manual research OR provides a robust prompt summary and a detailed Manual Correction showing exactly where the AI missed a vibe, tone, or fact. | Disclosure is vague, incomplete, or the required "Manual Correction" case is highly superficial or lacks specific detail. | No disclosure provided despite clear internal markers of automated language. May result in a zero for the section or exam. |
My AI Use on This Assignment:
Process Summary: I used Ball-State licensed Gemini 3.5-Flash (July 2026) to process this assignment. Using the context from producing this class's second Live Strategy Pitch, I uploaded my Spring 2026 final project to Gemini to review the content and adjust/reduce questions. Additional prompts helped refine the instructions for each question and make expected deliverables clearer. I also provided additional material like the class's specific Brand Visibility talking points to better map the questions' outcomes to our class material. I reviewed the full assignment, including question instructions and the rubric, to make sure content matches.
My Manual Correction: The first re-draft of my Spring 2026 questions were too light and generic, especially the original Question 3. I reworked the directions to help students make a more comprehensive Post Blueprint that they could apply in Questions 4-6.