A.1.1: Case Study #1: Responsibility & AI
The Divergence Artefact
Note: This outline provides guidance specific to Case Study #1, complementing the general case study rubric [link].
The Prompt
Create an artefact using GenAI — visual, written, or hybrid.
Deliverables
Your submission must include four parts:
i. Annotation (500 words)
A written reflection that addresses the following:
-
What did the AI want to give you?
Describe the default, the average, the path of least resistance. -
What did you make it give you instead?
Where did you push, redirect, or override? -
What risks did you navigate?
Identify at least two:- Legal (copyright, IP, liability)
- Regulatory (institutional rules, platform terms)
- Moral or ethical (harm, deception, manipulation)
- Creative (convergence, mediocrity, loss of voice)
-
Where is the line?
Identify specific moments in your artefact where the AI’s contribution ends and yours begins.
ii. The Artefact
The artefact is the primary output of the case study assignment. It is a designed or written piece that demonstrates your engagement with AI. The format is flexible and may take the form of a document, research poster, website, or video, depending on what best suits your work. Refer to the case-specific guidance for further details.
iii. Vignette
The short-form video is a concise audiovisual presentation of no more than 90 seconds. It should communicate the core argument and key insights of your case study clearly and efficiently. This should not be confused with any other videos you may create as part of the artefact itself.
iv. Evidences
Include at least one screenshot or transcript showing a moment of friction, resistance, or divergence in your process.
Grading Criteria
In a nutshell
We are not grading:
- Polish
- Technical sophistication
- “Correct” use of AI
We are grading:
| Criterion | What It Means |
|---|---|
| Deliberateness | Did you make choices, or did you accept defaults? |
| Awareness | Can you identify and articulate the risks you navigated? |
| Divergence | Is there evidence that the work could not have come from the machine alone? |
| Honesty | Are you clear about where the AI ends and you begin? |
Rubric
| Criterion | Excellent | Adequate | Insufficient |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deliberateness | Clear, specific choices documented, with rationale | Some choices documented, reasons unclear | Defaults accepted; no evidence of choice |
| Risk Awareness | Multiple risk types identified with nuance | Risks identified superficially | No risk awareness |
| Divergence | Clear moments of override; artefact requires human input | Some divergence, but limited | Artefact indistinguishable from raw AI output |
| Honesty | Precise attribution of human and AI roles | Partial clarity | Boundary unclear or obscured |
Submission
Deadline:
Original: 📅2026.02.25 ⏰00.00
Extended: 📅2026.02.27 ⏰12:00
The Standard
The goal is not to use AI well.
The goal is to prove you are not redundant.