Interactive controls are waiting to load. If you are in the Squarespace editor, save and open the page in a separate browser tab. The page requires a Squarespace plan that supports JavaScript.
Skip to working notesIs this worth
pursuing?
What is ASU contributing,
and why does it matter?
A shared way to consider a story, pitch, post or video: the case for doing it, the audience it serves and the effort it warrants.
From proposal to commitment
Preparing the idea and deciding its scope may involve the same person. These steps fit the office’s existing assignment conversations.
Describe the angle
What ASU contributes, who it is for and why it matters.
Review the case
Consider the purpose, audience, evidence and appropriate role for MRSC.
Choose an action
Proceed, reshape, limit the treatment, support a unit, defer or decline.
Agree the scope
Record the reason, deliverable, lead and any commitment that needs to move.
The proposal and the decision
Use the questions to develop the case, then choose an action. The brief can be copied into the conversation or assignment where the decision is made.
Examples load only when selected. Undo restores the previous draft.
Notes stay in this open page. Each context keeps a separate draft. Copy your notes before leaving or reloading.
Recommendations in context
These recommendations make the reasoning explicit. They apply to the facts given; a different audience, evidence base or resource commitment can change the choice.
All cases, facts and recommendations below are fictional draft examples, not assessments of published work or adopted office policy.
Scope
Another reasonable action
What would change the recommendation
Load this case to see how a brief can record the decision. The sample remains labeled as fictional when edited, copied or printed. Your previous draft can be restored with Undo.
When the angle needs work
Start with the question that remains unresolved. These prompts can help determine what to report, reframe or reduce before choosing a treatment.
The announcement is clearer than the story
- What does the underlying work contribute, beyond the announcement itself?
- Which finding, question or person would give the audience a reason to engage?
Starting point
A team receives funding for a new research project.
Possible direction
What the project will investigate, why the question matters, and what is not known yet.
The public value is still general
- Who specifically benefits, uses the work or needs the explanation?
- Which change can be documented, and which remains a possibility?
Starting point
The partnership will help communities.
Possible direction
The concrete problem the partners are addressing, with evidence of what has and has not changed.
The audience is too broad
- Which group has the strongest reason to care?
- What should that audience understand, and which channel can reach it?
Starting point
An explainer for everyone interested in technology.
Possible direction
An answer to a specific question facing the people who use or make decisions about it.
The claim is ahead of the evidence
- What can the research or reporting establish today?
- Could the finding itself carry the story, with future effects clearly identified as potential?
Starting point
A laboratory result will solve a public problem.
Possible direction
What the laboratory result demonstrates, why it is significant, and what further work is needed.
The scope is larger than the need
- Which single treatment would meet the purpose?
- What existing material or unit work can be used, and what would new production displace?
Starting point
A feature, a new video and several social posts.
Possible direction
A specific initial treatment, with any additional work considered on its own merits.
The timing or assignment needs clarification
- Does this need a date, or is it useful evergreen work?
- For a confirmed assignment, what output is required and what can be agreed with the commissioning lead?
Starting point
It needs to run soon, in several formats.
Possible direction
An agreed deliverable and schedule, with the audience and any displaced commitment identified.
The examples are fictional outlines, not assessments of published work. A useful next step may be further reporting, a smaller treatment or a decision not to proceed.
The team’s nine questions
The seven review prompts group the overlapping considerations and add evidence and scope. The full nine remain here, including reputation and the value of higher education.
01 / University prioritiesWhich agreed university priority does this advance?
Name the connection and what the coverage would help people understand. A topic label alone does not explain the value of the work.
Use the current office-approved priorities. This draft does not supply or validate that list.
Original consideration
Is this important to leadership or a university priority?
02 / Public valueWho benefits, and how?
Consider Arizona, the country and the communities affected. Identify the specific public problem, contribution or benefit, rather than assuming any university activity is consequential.
Distinguish demonstrated benefit from an intended or possible benefit.
Original consideration
How does this help the country, state or community?
03 / Research and innovationWhat does the research or innovation contribute?
Explain what is new, significant or newly understood, and what supports that account. Basic research and early findings can merit coverage without a proven practical application.
What can be said now, and what would overstate the findings?
Original consideration
Does this showcase impactful research and innovation?
04 / Higher educationWhat does this show about improving higher education?
If relevant, identify the change to learning, access, outcomes or how universities work. Explain the evidence and limitations of that change.
Being new at ASU does not by itself establish a wider change in higher education.
Original consideration
Does this show ASU at the forefront of needed changes and reform in higher education?
05 / Everyday relevanceWhat does this mean in people’s lives?
Look for the practical implications or experiences that help an audience understand the work. A person’s experience can make a contribution tangible without proving its broader effects.
What can a participant, affected person or independent source add?
Original consideration
Does this show how ASU helps everyday people?
06 / ASU’s reputationWhat should the audience understand about ASU?
Name the specific contribution, expertise or institutional role the work demonstrates. Accurate explanations and candid limits can also support credibility.
A positive mention or a large audience is not, by itself, a substantive purpose.
Original consideration
Does this positively impact the ASU brand?
07 / Value of higher educationWhat does this demonstrate about the value of higher education?
Consider what education, research or university service makes possible. Use the particular evidence to support the point without making the story carry a broader claim than it can establish.
This may overlap with public value or research; it is not an extra point in a tally.
Original consideration
Does this demonstrate why higher education or college is important?
08 / Audience interestWhy would this audience engage?
Consider usefulness, insight, emotion, surprise or a question people already have. “Would you share it yourself?” is a useful personal check, alongside what you know about the intended audience.
Your own sharing habits are one signal. They are not a requirement for other people’s interests.
Original consideration
Does this have a compelling emotional hook? Would you share it on your own social media?
09 / MRSC’s contributionWhat should MRSC contribute?
Decide whether the central team should produce, collaborate, advise, pitch, amplify or leave production with a unit. Consider the audience, unit capacity and other work the effort would displace.
Ownership, production scope and the decision to pursue are separate choices.
Original consideration
Is this a fit for MRSC, rather than being handled by a college or unit?
These considerations overlap and do not carry equal weight in every context. Checking more of them is not a score. A research story, an institutional response and a community item may have different purposes.
Use it where the work is discussed
The page helps develop and discuss the case. The card and copyable format keep the same questions available in an existing pitch, email or team conversation.
A short proposal can state the angle, audience and purpose first. Evidence, scope and the proposed action can follow as the assignment takes shape.
View the copyable pitch format
MRSC | PROPOSED COVERAGE Angle: [ASU’s contribution and why it matters] Audience and timing: [who this is for; deadline or publication window] Case: [priority, research contribution, public value or another editorial purpose] Evidence: [what is established; what needs reporting] Proposed action: [proceed / reshape or report / limited treatment / unit-led / defer / decline] Reason: [one sentence] Scope and owner: [deliverable, MRSC contribution, lead and effort] Next step: [action, deadline or condition to revisit]
The print layout has a front and back on two letter-size pages. Print at 100%, double-sided with a long-edge flip, then trim along the card border.
Editorial planning
- ProposalWhat would we report, produce or answer?
- AudienceWho needs this, and what should they learn?
- PurposeWhich priority or public need would this serve?
- EvidenceWhat can we substantiate? What needs reporting?
- ScopeWhat should MRSC contribute, at what cost?
- ActionWhat happens next, why and who owns it?
For proposed coverage
Proceed · Reshape or report · Limited treatment
Unit-led · Defer · Decline
Record a reason, a lead and a defined scope.
Seven review prompts
- Does this advance an agreed university priority?
- Does it explain a meaningful research or innovation contribution?
- Does it serve Arizona, the country or people’s everyday lives?
- Does it show the value of higher education or a meaningful change in how it works?
- Is the audience and a reason to engage clear?
- Can the reporting support the proposed claims?
- Is MRSC’s contribution and the level of effort clear?
“Would you share it yourself?” is one personal check alongside the intended audience’s interests. The questions are not a tally.
A proposed balance for the office, still to be defined.
Consider the portfolio as well as the project
The proposed 80/20 balance can reserve most effort for strategic work while allowing other editorial purposes. It is not a rule adopted by this draft. News-driven work and confirmed assignments can be highly strategic; neither is automatically counted outside the strategic share.
A simple project count treats a short response and a large video as equivalent. Staff effort may better reflect capacity, but it also takes more work to estimate. Agree on the measure, period and treatment of required work before calculating a ratio.
Choices the office still needs to confirm
- The current priority list and who maintains it.
- How recommendations are confirmed through existing commissioning responsibilities.
- Any shared guidance on effort and what to do when new work displaces a commitment.
- Whether and how to use 80/20, including the denominator, review period and treatment of required work.
To judge whether the toolkit helps, look for clearer audiences and angles, scope changes that preserve capacity, and time going toward agreed priorities. Visits to this page or the number of declined ideas would not establish that on their own.