# Your project presentation

## Audience and purpose

Explain your project to classmates acting as collaborators. Help them understand what question you asked, how the design supports your analysis, what the evidence permits you to say, and how you would plan a follow-up experiment.

The proposed format is **8 minutes of presentation, 5 minutes of questions, 2 minutes for transition**. Date/time and submission arrangements remain TBA. This is a learning brief, not a confirmed examination specification.

## Keep the scope focused

Use one primary outcome, one main comparison, one main figure and one justified sensitivity comparison. You do not need to show every output from R. Use the design diagram and reproducible short report you developed during Units 10–13.

Explain:

1. The biological question and precise target: outcome units, comparison, time and population.
2. What was assigned or observed; the animals or groups that received separate treatment assignments, or were selected separately for observation, grouping, repeats and important design constraints.
3. Why the distribution used to describe the outcome and model structure fit your question and design; one plausible alternative; what a diagnostic or sensitivity check changed or left uncertain. Explain any revision from the saved analysis plan.
4. The main estimate and interval in useful units. Explain practical importance without implying that an uncertain result proves no difference.
5. A feasible follow-up design with a prospective meaningful effect, candidate numbers of animals or groups assigned to each treatment, two plausible assumptions and simulation limitations.
6. What you conclude, what you cannot yet conclude and what information would change your recommendation.

If you use a supplied case, label the data and figures **synthetic teaching data**. The linked paper supplies context: your fitted results are not its findings. For an observational case, distinguish an association from an intervention effect. A projected follow-up experiment can answer a different question; say so.

## Shared responsibility

Divide speaking among three members, for example question/design, analysis/result, follow-up/limitations. Each person should know the whole project. During questions each member should answer at least one directed question about the design, model rationale, checks or interpretation in their own words; another member may then add a short clarification. Rehearse explaining a defensible alternative, not memorising a formula.

Bring an offline copy of slides/report and the labelled main figure. If slides are unavailable, use the report or a printed design diagram and figure. Acknowledge code assistance and any previously accessed complete solutions.

## How classmates will give feedback

They will comment on the question, units/model justification and alternatives, diagnostic decisions, meaningful estimate, proposed design and clarity/reproducibility. Multiple models may be defensible when their assumptions and target are explained. They will record one evidenced strength, one consequential question and one feasible revision. This is formative peer feedback. Instructor assessment requirements are confirmed separately.

## Acknowledge assistance

Acknowledge code assistance and any previously accessed worked solutions. Distinguish supplied choices from your own reasoning. Be ready to explain and critique those choices individually or discuss a fresh comparison agreed with the instructor.