marking-criteria-reviewer

name: marking-criteria-reviewer description: > Reviews output against the exact MN7002NI marking rubric to ensure distinction-level quality (85%+). Use this skill whenever reviewing, finalising, or quality-checking any content for the Mobilé Inc. coursework — including Task 1-4 content, executive summary, SWOT synthesis, strategic recommendation, presentation structure, or individual reflections. Also use when checking cross-task consistency, Harvard referencing, or three-wave coherence before submission.

Marking Criteria Reviewer — MN7002NI

This skill reviews coursework output against the exact marking rubric. The goal is distinction-level quality (85-100%). Read the full rubric at knowledge-base/marking-criteria.md.

Review Process

For each piece of content, run through these checks in order:

Step 1: Case-Specificity Check

Read every analytical statement and ask: "Could this sentence appear in a generic smartphone company analysis?"

• If YES → flag it. Rewrite with specific Mobilé Inc. data.
• If NO → pass.

The rubric is explicit: "generic answers not relevant to the case study will not be rewarded."

Step 2: Three-Wave Coherence Check

Scan the content for acknowledgement of the three-wave tension:

• Does it mention the 4G cash engine and its role?
• Does it acknowledge the 5G competitive gap?
• Does it reference the AI-device R&D decision?
• Does it address the simultaneous resource allocation challenge?

Missing any wave = incomplete analysis. The three-wave structure must be "fully understood and integrated throughout every task" for distinction marks.

Step 3: Task-Specific Criteria

Executive Summary (5 marks)

• Distils all four tasks into ONE cohesive argument (not task-by-task repetition)
• Captures: (a) strategic direction, (b) key analysis findings, (c) SWOT position, (d) recommendation
• A board member could read this independently and understand the strategic position
• Precision and selectivity — concise, not exhaustive
• No new information — purely synthesis of Tasks 1-4

Task 1: Strategy Process (15 marks)

• Vision: Reflects three-wave nature, ambitious yet grounded in post-DOJ reality
• Mission: Articulates what, for whom, in which markets — specific to Mobilé's multi-market, multi-tech portfolio
• Strategic Goals: Substantively linked to three waves, balance 4G defense/5G first-mover/AI R&D
• SMART Objectives: Quantified targets traceable to case data, measurable, realistic, time-bound
• Internal consistency: Vision → Mission → Goals → SMART form a coherent hierarchy
• Not generic: "To be the leading smartphone company globally" = minimal credit

Task 2: Internal & External Analysis (30 marks — HIGHEST WEIGHTED)

Internal:

• VRIO/RBV applied — goes beyond listing generic resources
• Value Chain applied — identifies where differential value is created
• Specific capabilities identified: Atlanta learning curve, 4G cash generation, R&D infrastructure, multi-market management
• Each resource assessed for competitive advantage vs. vulnerability in 2025 context
• Framework justification: why VRIO and Value Chain for Mobilé?

External:

• PESTLE applied — maps macro forces reshaping landscape (DOJ, trade, 5G, AI, sustainability)
• Porter's Five Forces — assesses industry structure post-DOJ
• Strategic Group Analysis — maps competitive positioning and divergence
• CSF identified — prioritises what must go right across three waves
• Framework justification for each: why selected, what specific insight it generates
• Goes beyond template-filling — genuine case-specific interpretation

Task 3: SWOT Synthesis (15 marks)

• Evidenced: Every point traces to Task 2 framework findings — no new information
• Case-specific: Every point specific to Mobilé (e.g., "No 5G handset despite 70%+ coverage" not "limited product range")
• Strategically interpreted: Each point carries explicit implication for strategic direction
• Internal-external connections: Links visible (manufacturing strength → market opportunity, 4G dependency → price competition threat)
• Consistent with Task 4: SWOT must logically set up the recommendation — no contradictions
• Not a generic list: Reads as a synthesis document, not a brainstorm

Task 4: Strategic Recommendation (15 marks)

• Clarity: Clear, unambiguous position — which markets, which waves, which competitive posture
• Three-wave coherence: Explicitly addresses all three waves simultaneously (not sequentially)
• Analytical consistency: Follows from Tasks 1-3, no contradictions
• Trade-off honesty: Acknowledges $90M floor, simultaneous capital demands, licensing vs in-house, 4G decline
• Executive communication: Reads as a strategic brief, not a summary of analysis — makes the decision, justifies it, explains what it requires
• Not hedged: Vague or hedged recommendations = low marks

Presentation Structure (10 marks)

• Clearly organised by task, each visually distinct
• Visual aids enhance (not duplicate) verbal content
• Narrative flows from executive summary through to recommendation
• Professional quality — would fit a board-level strategy briefing
• Max 30 slides (including title, agenda, references, appendix)

Individual Reflection (10 marks)

• Minimum 700 words
• Details individual contributions
• Describes lessons learnt
• Applies classroom studies to the analysis
• Shows evidence of independent learning

Step 4: Cross-Task Consistency Check

• Task 1 vision/mission → reflected in what Task 2 examines
• Task 2 findings → every SWOT point in Task 3 traces back to Task 2
• Task 3 SWOT → logically sets up Task 4 recommendation (no contradictions)
• Task 4 recommendation → fulfils Task 1 vision/mission
• Executive Summary → accurately distils all four tasks

Step 5: Harvard Referencing Check

• All citations use Harvard format correctly
• In-text citations present for key claims
• Reference list is comprehensive and error-free
• Mix of academic and industry sources (shows reading beyond course material)

Scoring Guide

After review, assign an estimated grade band:

Flag any section scoring below Merit and provide specific improvement guidance.