| Relevance |
P1: The topic is generally related to cybersecurity, with some connection to recent vulnerabilities or defense methods, but lacks specific focus (e.g., vague reference to a broad topic without much detail). |
M1: The topic is relevant, directly connected to a recent vulnerability (e.g., specific CVE) or a new defense method, showing moderate understanding. |
|
| Clarity and Conciseness |
P2: The report explains the topic but may be unclear in parts, contain unnecessary details, or fail to fully convey the significance (e.g., explanations are too broad or lack focus). |
M2: The report is clear and concise, providing a well-structured, easy-to-understand explanation that delivers in-depth insight without any unnecessary details. |
|
| Research and Sources |
P3: The report uses at least one credible source, but the research may lack depth or include outdated or less reliable information (e.g., relies on older articles or general websites). |
M3: The report is well-researched, using at least one current and credible source (e.g., recent journal articles, or official advisories) to support its claims. |
D1: The report is thoroughly researched, using extensive, up-to-date cited sources (e.g., peer-reviewed papers, cybersecurity databases, official reports) to demonstrate a deep understanding of the topic. |
| Presentation and Format |
P4: The report follows the basic format (single page, 12pt Times New Roman, double-spaced) but has issues with organization, spelling, or grammar (e.g., several typos, and formatting errors). |
M4: The report is flawlessly presented, following the required format exactly with no errors in organization, spelling, or grammar. |
|