ACTL3141/ACTL5104 Assignment Rubric, T1 2025
TASK/CRITERION Below Expectation (F) Meets Expectation (PS-CR) Exceeds Expectation (DN - HD)
Descriptive analysis of hospitalised
patients [15 Marks]
- Does not apply appropriate methods, or
applies them incorrectly.
- Provides little or no meaningful description of
patient characteristics.
- Makes general or unsupported claims without
linking to data.
- Applies some appropriate descriptive
techniques to summarise the data.
- Provides a basic description of the profile
of hospitalised patients with some
connection to the analysis.
- Attempts to compare influenza and
COVID-19 patients, though this may be
superficial or loosely supported by data.
- Applies appropriate and well-executed
descriptive methods to explore key patient
characteristics.
- Provides a clear, accurate, and well-supported
description of the profiles of hospitalised
patients.
- Delivers a thoughtful and insightful comparison
of influenza and COVID-19 patients, clearly
grounded in the descriptive analysis results.
Survival Analysis of Influenza
Patients [30 Marks]
- Fails to apply survival analysis methods
correctly, or omits key modelling steps.
- Does not provide a clear summary or
interpretation of results.
- Makes inaccurate or unsupported claims
about covariate effects.
- Applies at least one appropriate survival
analysis method (e.g. Kaplan-Meier, Cox
model), though may have some errors or
omissions.
- Provides a basic summary and discussion
of results.
- Identifies the impact of some covariates
on mortality, with partial justification from
the model outputs.
- Demonstrates some logical reasoning but
may lack depth or clarity.
- Applies appropriate survival methods accurately
(e.g. KM curves, Cox models), with well-justified
modelling choices.
- Provides a clear and insightful interpretation of
model results, including hazard ratios and
covariate effects.
- Demonstrates strong critical reasoning and
contextual understanding of mortality risk and
model assumptions.
- Clearly connects modelling outputs to actuarial
implications.
Comparison of mortality risk
between COVID-19 and influenza
(20 Marks) - Fails to apply appropriate statistical methods
to compare the two diseases.
- Provides no or incorrect interpretation of
results.
- Makes unsupported or vague claims about
differences in risk.
- Does not consider covariates or key
assumptions.
- Applies some appropriate statistical
methods to compare mortality risk.
- Summarises results and provides basic
interpretation.
- Identifies some key differences in risk,
with limited discussion of covariates or
assumptions.
- Reasoning is present but may lack clarity
or rigour.
- Applies appropriate and well-justified statistical
methods to compare mortality risk (e.g.
accounting for key covariates).
- Provides a thorough and insightful discussion of
model outputs, assumptions, and implications.
- Draws clear, evidence-based conclusions on
the differences in mortality risk between the two
diseases.
- Demonstrates strong critical reasoning and links
findings to broader actuarial or public health
context.
Ethical analysis and stakeholder
impact [10 Marks]

- Does not identify relevant ethical frameworks
or principles.
- Fails to identify key stakeholders or explain
how they are affected.
- Makes vague or unsupported ethical claims.
- Identifies appropriate ethical principles or
frameworks and applies them with some
clarity.
- Recognises relevant stakeholders and
discusses potential impacts of decisions,
though the analysis may be superficial.
- Applies relevant ethical frameworks with insight
and critical depth.
- Clearly identifies key stakeholders and provides
a thoughtful analysis of the implications of
insurance decisions on each.
ACTL3141/ACTL5104 Assignment Rubric, T1 2025
Recommendations and justification
[10 marks]
- Fails to propose feasible or relevant
recommendations.
- Provides no or poor justification.
- Proposes reasonable recommendations
to address the identified issues.
- Provides basic justification based on
analysis or frameworks.
- Provides thoughtful and practical
recommendations directly addressing identified
ethical concerns.
- Justifies choices using strong analysis and
ethical reasoning.
- Considers alternative options or trade-offs
where appropriate.
COMMUNICATION CRITERIA
Below Expectation (F) Meets Expectation (PS-CR) Exceeds Expectation (DN - HD)
Communicates clearly and
concisely
[5 Marks]
- Frequently unclear or imprecise in language
use.
- Meaning is often difficult to understand due to
poor grammar or vocabulary.
- Technical content is not well explained.
- Generally communicates ideas clearly
and appropriately for the intended
audience.
- Minor grammatical or expression issues
may occasionally affect clarity.
- Technical content is mostly
understandable.
- Communicates ideas, arguments, and technical
content clearly, precisely, and concisely.
- Language is fluent, appropriate, and free of
significant errors.
- Complex concepts are explained effectively and
accessibly.
Structures text logically and
coherently
[5 Marks]
- Poor organisation of ideas or sections.
- Inappropriate or missing structure (e.g.,
unclear introduction, no logical flow).
- Misuse of the appendix or lack of cross-
referencing.
- Mostly logical and coherent structure.
- Adequate use of introduction, body, and
conclusion.
- Reasonable organisation between main
body and appendix, with some
referencing.
- Clear and well-organised structure throughout.
- Ideas are developed logically and transitions
are smooth.
- Excellent use of appendix to support the main
body, with effective cross-referencing.
Presents text professionally
[5 Marks]
- Poor formatting, frequent spelling or
punctuation errors.
- Style is inappropriate for an
academic/business context.
- Required components (e.g., appendix, AI
usage note) may be missing.
- Figures/tables missing, unlabelled, or not
referenced in the text.
- Mostly professional formatting and tone.
- Some minor language or formatting
errors.
- Includes the required components (e.g.,
AI usage appendix).
- Figures/tables are labelled and
referenced but may lack consistency or
clarity.
- Professionally presented throughout.
- Free of distracting errors in formatting, spelling,
or grammar.
- Appropriate tone and layout for
academic/business context.
- All required components included and well
integrated.
- Figures and tables are clearly labelled, well-
formatted, and consistently referenced in the
main text to support arguments.


学霸联盟