Draft 3. Revision and Model Development. The student must revise the question and
literature review of the portfolio in accordance with criticism of that work. In addition,
the student must now add a formal model that addresses the issue. The model should
be fully specified – its assumptions and definitions should be clear, as should its
structure. Meeting this milestone is worth up to 70 points, depending on the quality of
the work.
 The question and literature review are worth 20 points. You will receive these
points in proportion to the amount of required revision that was made in this
draft. In other words, simply tacking the old literature review (without revisions)
onto the new draft will result in the loss of 20 points.
 Clearly stating the attributes of the formal model (e.g. a game, an expected
utility model, an evolutionary model, etc) is worth 10 points.
 Defining the non-standard terms in the model and listing its non-standard
assumptions are worth 10 points. A non-standard term or assumption is
something not already embedded in the generic class of model. For example, a
game-theoretic model of deterrence need not define terms such as strategy,
node, or Nash Equilibrium – these are part of game theory, and anyone who
understands game theory already knows what they mean. However, the term
“deterrence” would need to be defined, and any assumptions about players’
preferences would need to be clearly stated.

 Having a complete structure to the model, so that someone with sufficient skill
could use it to deduce hypotheses, is worth 20 points.
 Justifying the attributes, each non-standard definition or assumption, and the
structure of the model are collectively worth 10 points.
 For every spelling/grammar error, one point will be deducted.