[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-623675-105":59,"doc-detail-623675-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","gce-design-technology-unit-9dt01-architecture-portfolio-evidence-commentary","GCE Design & Technology Unit 9DT01 - Architecture Portfolio evidence commentary","","GCE Design & Technology Unit 9DT01 architecture full-portfolio evidence commentary evaluates a 39-slide submission, focusing on investigation, analysis/research, specification, design ideas, and development. The feedback highlights a broad initial scenario that quickly narrows to a rail station, with good questionnaire identification of needs but research materials described as rambling and not sufficiently driven by client input. Specification points lack measurability, and design ideas remain mostly high-level, limiting potential for higher-level awards.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":20,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/exam/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/gce-design-technology-unit-9dt01-architecture-portfolio-evidence-commentary/623675/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/gce-design-technology-unit-9dt01-architecture-portfolio-evidence-commentary/623675.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Bulrr","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-01","2026-10-20",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":39},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What does the commentary evaluate in the candidate’s architecture portfolio?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"It assesses multiple evidence grids covering investigation, analysis/research, specification, design ideas, and development across the 39-slide submission.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What strengths does the commentary note in the investigation stage?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"It notes that the questionnaire work helps identify needs of the target market and that the investigation is generally sound, though the client remains anonymous and the focus shifts quickly to the rail station.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"Why is the specification stage marked as limited?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The specification points are described as lacking measurability and having only a limited relationship to the research, with examples such as screens needing to be big enough rather than derived from quantified research.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},623675,1793045481,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":19,"category_name":20,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":39,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":19,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":143,"read_time":52,"preview_page_count":4},5909892115043,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_6f874abed73319feea01a86fa6f0fab8","GCE Design & Technology Unit: 9DT01  \n\n| Topic: Architecture |  | Full Portfolio evidence |  |  |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| General Description: In this example the candidate presents 39 slides as part of the submission the candidates appears to have a broad staring point that may have highlighted several exciting possibilities, but they move rather quickly to a specific Rail station. |  |  |  | Mod Mark |\n| Grid 1:\u003Cbr>Investigation\u003Cbr>Evidence | In this section we are expecting to see the candidates exploring a range of pertinent design possibilities that grow out of a clear conversation with a real client or a proven narrative with a target market that has a level of reality therefore mimicking commercial activity. Alongside the client/user groups they need to decide on the potential design possibility that they will be working towards and produce a preliminary design brief. Several design possibilities for initial proposals are undertaken but are a little disparate and some work carried is carried out on target markets and potential client/s. This work does feel slightly contrived in that the main focus already appears tobe the rail station. (Slide 3) . The questionnaire work is good in identifying the needs of the target market. (Slide 5 .) It is a good starting point to look at a broad initial scenario and the ‘hone’ that to an initial design scenario, but it is a pity that the client feels rather anonymous and fairly quickly moved to the design of a railway station. That said, some of the analysis is relevant and the investigation is sound. This is a level 2 submission. |  |  | Level 2 |\n| Grid 2:\u003Cbr>Analysis / Research\u003Cbr>Evidence | At this level, would expect candidates to have clearly identified focused research that it pertinent to their specific design problem that offers clarification or refinement of the needs. This type of research would then focus on the needs and lead into firm technical and measurable specification points. Problem areas are identified, and some analysis is given in order to determine the direction of this project. The candidate conducted relevant research in chosen challenge in terms of the footprint of the proposal with some user group needs and wants and existing products and relevant materials and components (Slide 5) we must be careful here not to award twice. (i.e. Grid 1 and Grid 2) The materials work especially is somewhat rambling and lacked focus and the candidate again seems to have lost sight of client input. This often indicates that the candidate needs to reengage with the client as is the case here. Some of the footprint work (Slide 13) and commentary is commendable as is the anthropometric data to a more limited extent. (Slides 11-12) . Toilet sizing is important but surely platform sizes and concourse footfall for example is imperative and therefore should be in the forefront of the research. The candidate also omits to engage with what would be numerous interested stakeholders. The top of level 2 is an appropriate award. |  |  | Level 2 |\n\n\n| Grid 3:\u003Cbr>Specification\u003Cbr>Evidence | The candidate submits a re-working of the brief and a specification with bulleted points. This normally does provide some focus for the candidate. However, the specification points are lacking in measurability and have a limited relationship to the research. (Slide 14) .\u003Cbr>We do see some use of the work that the candidate undertook in the research related to materials such as glass and concrete, and this was considered but the overriding factor here is the lack of realistic, technical and measurable specification points. For example, the candidate states “ The (information)screens should be big enough,” This should be a product of research and should therefore be specific or at least some limits suggested. This would allow for scalability and measurability. The submission is better than basic but is still limited by the lack of data drawn from the research that will influence the reviews and","cbCaif7exE31lw5Z","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaif7exE31lw5Z","pdf",164394,"English","# Topic: Architecture\n## Grid 1: Investigation Evidence\n## Grid 2: Analysis / Research Evidence\n## Grid 3: Specification Evidence\n## Grid 4: Design ideas Evidence\n## Grid 5: Development Evidence","[{\"question\":\"What does the commentary evaluate in the candidate’s architecture portfolio?\",\"answer\":\"It assesses multiple evidence grids covering investigation, analysis/research, specification, design ideas, and development across the 39-slide submission.\"},{\"question\":\"What strengths does the commentary note in the investigation stage?\",\"answer\":\"It notes that the questionnaire work helps identify needs of the target market and that the investigation is generally sound, though the client remains anonymous and the focus shifts quickly to the rail station.\"},{\"question\":\"Why is the specification stage marked as limited?\",\"answer\":\"The specification points are described as lacking measurability and having only a limited relationship to the research, with examples such as screens needing to be big enough rather than derived from quantified research.\"}]","GCE Design & Technology Unit 9DT01 - Architecture Portfolio evidence commentary | PDF",1792469418]