ACC ASSIGNMENT

• Structured Workbook Layout
 15% of total result
 
 
 ExemplaryWorkbook demonstrates a consistently logical and professional structure: clearly labeled, separated input, calculations, and outputs; consistent naming conventions; navigation is intuitive and supports auditability.
 
 80 - 100%
 
 
 ProficientWorkbook shows a solid, practical structure with clearly labeled sections and logical flow; minor inconsistencies in labeling or separation but overall easy to follow.
 
 60 - 80% 
 
 
 CompetentWorkbook structure exists but lacks consistent labeling or clear separation between input, calculation, and output; some sections may be hard to locate.
 
 40 - 60% 
 
 
 DevelopingWorkbook has ambiguous or cluttered structure with inconsistent sections; difficulty tracing data flow; limited documentation of sheet roles.
 
 20 - 40% 
 
 
 EmergingWorkbook structure is ad hoc or poorly organized, making it hard to use or audit; no standard labeling or clear section delineation.
 
 0 - 20% 
 


• Single Variable Analysis Accuracy 
 20% of total result
 
 
 ExemplarySingle-variable model correctly targets one key parameter; formulas are transparent, with correct references; results align with the stated objective.
 
 80 - 100%
 
 
 ProficientModel correctly analyzes the chosen variable, with transparent calculations and alignment to decision goal; minor issues in formula labeling or traceability.
 
 60 - 80% 
 
 
 CompetentModel addresses the variable but calculations show occasional misreferences or lacking clear traceability to inputs and outputs.
 
 40 - 60% 
 
 
 DevelopingModel uses the variable but errors or unclear logic reduce trust in results; limited documentation of rationale.
 
 20 - 40% 
 
 
 EmergingModel fails to correctly implement the single variable analysis; significant formula errors or misalignment with the objective.
 
 0 - 20% 


• Range Names Usage 
 10% of total result
 
 
 ExemplaryRange names are used consistently and descriptively, enhancing readability and auditability; cross-workbook references are minimal and well-managed.
 
 80 - 100%
 
 
 ProficientRange names are used with clear intent; most formulas rely on named ranges, improving readability.
 
 60 - 80% 
 
 
 CompetentSome use of range names exists, but consistency is uneven and occasional hard-coded references reduce robustness.
 
 40 - 60% 
 
 
 DevelopingMinimal or inconsistent use of range names; formulas often rely on direct cell references, reducing clarity.
 
 20 - 40% 
 
 
 EmergingNo meaningful use of range names; heavy reliance on hard-coded references, making maintenance difficult.
 
 0 - 20% 
 


• Model Robustness and Accuracy 
 20% of total result
 
 
 ExemplaryModel exhibits high robustness: accurate calculations, sensible edge-case handling, and consistent results across tested scenarios; outputs support reliable decisions.
 
 80 - 100%
 
 
 ProficientModel is generally robust with accurate calculations and reasonable handling of typical edge cases; results are dependable for decision making.
 
 60 - 80% 
 
 
 CompetentModel is mostly correct but shows some edge-case vulnerabilities or minor numerical inconsistencies that could mislead decisions.
 
 40 - 60% 
 
 
 DevelopingModel has notable robustness gaps; several edge cases not handled, leading to questionable outputs for certain scenarios.
 
 20 - 40% 
 
 
 EmergingModel is fragile or incorrect across key scenarios; results undermine decision making due to systemic calculation issues.
 
 0 - 20% 


• Sensitivity Analysis Clarity 
 15% of total result
 
 
 ExemplarySensitivity analysis is clearly described, with one-key- variable impact demonstrated and interpreted in the context of decision making.
 
 80 - 100%
 
 
 ProficientSensitivity analysis is present and interpretable, showing how changes in the key variable affect outcomes; interpretation is generally sound.
 
 60 - 80% 
 
 
 CompetentSensitivity analysis is shown but interpretation is superficial or lacks explicit linkage to decision criteria.
 
 40 - 60% 
 
 
 DevelopingLimited or unclear sensitivity analysis; few or poorly explained scenarios; interpretation does not clearly inform decisions.
 
 20 - 40% 
 
 
 EmergingNo meaningful sensitivity analysis; results absent or misinterpreted in a way that provides no decision support.
 
 0 - 20% 


• Outputs and Decision Support
 10% of total result
 
 
 ExemplaryOutputs are logically connected to inputs and calculations; decision implications are explicitly stated, with quantitative guidance for management.
 
 80 - 100%
 
 
 ProficientOutputs are consistent with the model and clearly present decision implications; some quantitative guidance is provided.
 
 60 - 80% 
 
 
 CompetentOutputs exist but lack clear linkage to the decision objective or require interpretation beyond what is presented.
 
 40 - 60% 
 
 
 DevelopingOutputs are present but poorly organized; minimal explanation for how they drive decisions.
 
 20 - 40% 
 
 
 EmergingOutputs are insufficient or misaligned with the model; little to no guidance for decision making.
 
 0 - 20% 
 


• Professional Formatting and Documentation
 10% of total result
 
 
 ExemplaryDocumented formatting and professional presentation are excellent: consistent fonts, styles, and a polished write-up that reinforces credibility.
 
 80 - 100%
 
 
 ProficientFormatting is professional with minor inconsistencies; documentation supports understanding and credibility.
 
 60 - 80% 
 
 
 CompetentFormatting shows some professional intent but several inconsistencies affect readability or perceived rigor.
 
 40 - 60% 
 
 
 DevelopingFormatting is basic or uneven; documentation is incomplete or lacks clarity, reducing professionalism.
 
 20 - 40% 
 
 
 EmergingFormatting and documentation are minimal or poorly executed; significant gaps in professionalism and clarity.
 
 0 - 20%