Computationally Yours · Handbook
Handbook · 15 · A1 · A2 · A3 · Srishti Manipal Interim 2026

Three submissions

Final assessment rubric. The month is assessed in three submissions: A1 at the end of Week 1, A2 at the end of Week 2, and A3, the final, at the opening. Each has its own criteria, weighted towards the final mark.

seed assessment · depth 3
A1 · Identity
20% · Day 5 · Fri 27 Nov
A2 · System
30% · Day 10 · Fri 4 Dec
A3 · Final
50% · Day 20 · Fri 18 Dec
Submitted
Repository, by 3:30
Plus
Presentation or conversation
—

Three submissions

Percentages of the final mark.

SubmissionWeightDueAssessed at
A1 · Identity20%Day 5 · Fri 27 Nov, 3:30Critique 1
A2 · System30%Day 10 · Fri 4 Dec, 3:30Critique 2
A3 · Final50%Day 20 · Fri 18 Dec, morningThe exhibition and a conversation at your zone
  • Submitting means pushing. Each submission is the state of your repository at the deadline, plus what you present in the room.
  • Each submission builds on the last. You can keep improving the identity and the system after A1 and A2; A3 assesses where they end up, through the artefact and the exhibition.
  • Critique 3 is feedback only. It falls inside A3, so it isn't marked; use it to get the artefact right.
—

Requirements

By A3, every submission must meet these before the rubric is applied.

  • One authored identity, with a manifesto of 150 words or fewer.
  • An original generative system that you can explain. AI image generation on its own is not a system.
  • At least one exhibition-quality physical artefact: a plot, a resin object, a print, or any combination.
  • A public repository with the files in the submission checklists.
  • A daily log with an entry for most studio days, and an authorship log.
A1

Identity

A1

Identity — take a position

Due Day 5 · Fri 27 Nov, 3:30 · presented at Critique 1
20%
Submit
  • identity.md: the completed identity worksheet
  • manifesto.md: version 2, 150 words or fewer
  • references.md: at least 15, checked
  • candidates.md, metaphors.md
  • Identity card draft and one-page proposal
  • log.md for Days 1–5
The question

Who is speaking? What do they care about? Would this voice matter outside the studio?

CriterionExceptionalAccomplishedDevelopingBeginning
Position6% · the conditionA precise, researched condition the identity stands in a distinctive relation to.A specific, real condition clearly tied to the identity.A specific condition, loosely connected to the identity.A broad theme ("the environment") rather than a condition.
Voice6% · the manifestoA voice no one else could have written: it commits, refuses and sets rules.Speaks as the identity, commits, with few generic lines.Speaks as the identity, with hedged or borrowed lines.Describes the identity from outside, or sounds borrowed.
Evidence4% · researchChecked sources visibly shaping every part of the identity.Fifteen checked references, most of them used.Fifteen references, some only loosely used or unchecked.Few references, mostly images.
Substance4% · distanceA position of real weight, honest and precise about its distance from the student.Serious, with the distance from the student stated.Serious, but the distance from the student is unclear.Reads as a costume, a joke, or the student under another name.
A2

System

A2

Computation — write the rules

Due Day 10 · Fri 4 Dec, 3:30 · presented at Critique 2
30%
Submit
  • The running system in src/, with config/params.json
  • Twenty outputs in outputs/digital/, named by seed
  • README with the parameter table
  • system.md: the system worksheet
  • The hand-drawn diagram in diagram/
  • authorship.md and log.md to Day 10
  • Pathway choice and one-page production plan
The question

Does the system speak in the identity's voice, or could anyone's rules have made this?

CriterionExceptionalAccomplishedDevelopingBeginning
Rules10% · from the manifestoOriginal rules that are the identity's argument.Every important rule traces to the manifesto.Some rules trace to the manifesto; others are the technique's defaults.Rules come from a tutorial or the technique's defaults.
Range8% · twenty outputsWide variation in one unmistakable language.Real variation that stays recognisably the identity's.A recognisable language with limited range.Near-identical outputs, or no common language.
Explanation7% · understandingExplains every rule and parameter; reproduces any output from its seed.Explains the system fully; outputs reproducible.Explains the main rules; parts unclear or not reproducible.Can't explain the system without the screen.
Authorship5% · working with CodexA sharp record of decisions, including reasoned rejections.A clear record of what Codex did and what was rejected.A thin record with few decisions against its suggestions.No record, or the system is mostly the machine's.
A3

Final

A3

Material and exhibition — stand behind it

Due Day 20 · Fri 18 Dec, before the walkthrough · assessed in the exhibition
50%
Submit
  • The artefact, installed in your zone, with card, manifesto, label and QR code
  • The complete repository: everything in the A3 checklist
  • process.md, final-statement.md, reflection.md
  • tests/TESTS.md and photographs in docs/photos/
The question

Does the physical work embody the system, and does it let a visitor follow the identity's position from rules to object?

During the walkthrough or straight after, a short conversation at your zone: walk through the system and answer questions about any part of it.

CriterionExceptionalAccomplishedDevelopingBeginning
Artefact and material18%The material is part of the argument; resolved, exhibition-ready craft.A well-made object in a fitting material.An object made, with problems of craft or finish.Unfinished, or not exhibition quality.
Fidelity8% · the system, embodiedUnmistakably the system's output, translated into material with care.Clearly produced by the system.Made from the system's file, but the link is partly lost.A picture of an output, adjusted by hand.
Exhibition8% · the zoneThe zone reads as a whole, with a clear order and the atlas connection made visible.All elements present, well placed and legible.Elements present but crowded, unclear or untested.Elements missing; QR or labels don't work.
Documentation10% · the recordA complete, honest record; process.md would teach a stranger how the work is made.Log, tests, process and photographs all present and specific.Gaps in the log, or documents written thinly at the end.Little record of how the work was made.
Authorship6% · the conversationExplains every line and decision with ease; the reflection is sharp and honest.Explains the system fully; a clear reflection.Explains most of it; the reflection is general.Can't explain the code, or the work is mostly the machine's.
—

Integrity

  • Credit everything you used: data, references, code you adapted, and help from people.
  • Codex is a tool you declare, through the authorship log. Using it is expected; hiding what it did is not.
  • Words are yours. A manifesto, statement or log written by an AI is not your work.