Curriculum review rubric¶
A maintainer/reviewer should score substantive proposals against these questions.
1. Cross-domain value¶
Does the change unlock multiple downstream capabilities, or only add local detail?
2. Necessity¶
Can the target capability be regenerated without it?
If yes, the proposal may be valuable but is probably deferred, not minimum.
3. Transfer¶
Does the proposed concept reappear across domains?
4. Evidence quality¶
Prefer, in order:
- primary/official source;
- authoritative synthesis;
- institutional teaching material;
- secondary explainer;
- AI synthesis.
AI synthesis can organize; it cannot serve as final authority.
5. Proof of ownership¶
Can the learner:
- regenerate;
- solve an unseen case;
- construct a counterexample/failure;
- state assumptions;
- measure/check;
- defend?
6. Opportunity cost¶
What is deleted or compressed?
A curriculum that only grows is not a theoretical minimum.
7. System closure¶
Does the change account for measurement, scale, reliability, economics, safety, or institutions where relevant?
8. Epistemic labeling¶
Normative and practitioner sources are welcome when useful, but must not be presented as empirical consensus.
9. Safety¶
Do not turn the educational repository into operational guidance for harmful biological manipulation, weapons, malicious software, or evasion.
10. Adversarial review¶
The author should state the strongest case against their own change.