| Course | MHRM 6901 Capstone: Strategic Human Resource Management |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 10 |
| Paper type | Revision pass |
| Length | About 560 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | MS in Human Resource Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MHRM 6901 Week 10
Four Revision Passes Through the Hartwell Capstone, for Terms, Tense, Hedging and the Recommendation's Wording, With Every Change Entered in a Log the Instructor Can Audit
Student Name
Walden University
MHRM 6901: Capstone: Strategic Human Resource Management
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Four Revision Passes Through the Hartwell Capstone, for Terms, Tense, Hedging and the Recommendation's Wording, With Every Change Entered in a Log the Instructor Can Audit
Why Separate Passes
The Hartwell Baking Company capstone's sections were drafted weeks apart, and each carries the habits of the week it was written in. The workforce section, drafted early, calls the same people "techs," "maintenance staff" and "technicians." The rewards section slides between past and present tense. Hedging varies: the gap analysis says Hartwell "fails" to grow from within, while the reconciliation memo says it "may not fully" do so. Revising for everything at once tends to fix the obvious and miss the rest. This pass ran through the paper four times, each time for one concern, and logged every change. Williams and Bizup (2017) recommend revising for one feature of style at a time, because readers experience inconsistency as a loss of clarity even when each sentence is correct.
The Four Passes
Table 1
Revision Passes and Changes Made
| Pass | Rule applied | Changes logged | |
|---|---|---|
| Terms | One term per concept: "maintenance technician," "second restaurant contract," "phased schedule," "apprenticeship" | 31 | |
| Tense | Past tense for what was found or done; present tense for what the evidence shows and what is recommended | 22 | |
| Hedging | Hedge to match the confidence of the evidence: no hedge for record counts, "about" for estimates, "may" only where evidence is mixed | 17 | |
| Recommendation wording | The recommendation worded identically wherever it appears | 4 | |
Composite organization.
Examples From the Log
Terms: in the workforce section, "we will need about 14 more techs for the new line" became "the new line requires 14 additional maintenance technicians." The change also removed the first person, which the rest of the paper does not use.
Tense: in the rewards section, the verb in "exit records cite pay" stayed in present tense because it reports what the records show, while "Hartwell raised the differential in 2019" stayed in past tense because it reports an event.
Hedging: in the gap analysis, "Hartwell fails to grow from within" was a stronger claim than the records support for supervisors, who are promoted internally. It became "Hartwell does not grow its maintenance technicians from within," which is exact. In the rewards section, "raising pay will cut turnover to 13 percent" became "raising pay is estimated to cut turnover to about 13 percent," because the figure is an estimate. Hyland (1998) describes hedging as a way of signaling the writer's confidence accurately, neither overstating nor understating it; the pass applied that standard claim by claim.
Recommendation wording: the executive summary, the reconciliation memo and the final section described the recommendation in four slightly different ways, one omitting the night differential. All four now read identically.
How the Log Can Be Audited
Each log entry records the section, the original wording, the revised wording and the rule applied. An instructor can open any section, find a logged change and confirm it. Changes not covered by one of the four rules, such as a corrected figure, are recorded separately with their source.
What the Passes Did Not Change
The passes did not change any finding, figure or argument. Two figures that looked inconsistent turned out to be correct, and are now explained where they appear. Style follows APA conventions for numbers and headings (American Psychological Association, 2020).
References
American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.).
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. John Benjamins.
Williams, J. M., & Bizup, J. (2017). Style: Lessons in clarity and grace (12th ed.). Pearson.
Reading the MHRM 6901 Week 10 instructions
Week 10 asks you to revise your capstone for consistency. Run separate passes, each for one concern, such as terminology, tense, hedging and the wording of your recommendation. State the rule for each pass before applying it. Log every change with the section, the original, the revision and the rule. Give representative examples that show your reasoning. Make sure the passes change style only, and record separately any change to a figure. Explain how an instructor could audit the log. Run the recommendation pass last, after the other three, so its final wording is settled once and then copied unchanged into the abstract, the summary, the body and the conclusion. Keep the log in a simple table rather than in tracked changes alone.
How this MHRM 6901 Week 10 example is built
The brief opens with examples of inconsistency across sections and cites Williams and Bizup on revising one feature at a time. A table lists four passes with their rules and change counts. A section gives examples from each pass, including a term change that also removed the first person, tense choices for findings and events and hedges matched to evidence, citing Hyland. A section explains how the log can be audited. A final section confirms no finding changed and notes APA conventions. Each example in the brief pairs the original wording with the revision and names the rule that justified it, so a reader can see that the change followed a stated standard rather than taste. The term pass also aligns the job titles in the tables with those in the text.
Where the marks sit in the MHRM 6901 Week 10 rubric
Revision passes are graded on method and transparency. Separate passes, each with a stated rule, earn credit. A log that records every change is weighted heavily, since it makes the revision auditable. Examples that show reasoning, especially for hedging matched to evidence, demonstrate judgment. Keeping style changes separate from changes to substance shows discipline. Consistent wording of the recommendation throughout is expected. Revisions that simply proofread, or alter findings without saying so, receive lower marks. Markers often spot-check the log by choosing three entries at random and finding them in the paper, so an accurate log matters more than a long one. A short statement that figures were checked and left unchanged, or corrected and listed apart, is also rewarded.
Common MHRM 6901 Week 10 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Choose three or four things that vary across your sections, such as the name you use for a group, the tense of findings or how confidently you state estimates. For each, write one rule. Then read the whole paper once for each rule, changing only what that rule covers, and record each change. Find every place your recommendation appears and make the wording identical. Finally, check that no number or conclusion moved. Many revisions fix typos and leave the seams between sections untouched. If you want help writing your rules, send us a page from two different sections. A common slip is changing a number while fixing a sentence and never noting it. Another is softening every claim, so that hedges no longer tell the reader which findings rest on counts and which rest on estimates.
Get a MHRM 6901 Week 10 example written to your instructions
Send the revision pass instructions, its rubric and your assembled draft, flagging any terms you already know drift. A glossary of fixed terms and four logged passes, ending with the recommendation worded one way everywhere, come back in 24 to 48 hours; the first costs nothing. Each logged change edits prose about a bakery that was never real.
More MHRM 6901 papers and MS in Human Resource Management samples
- MHRM 6901 Week 1: Capstone Scope Proposal
- MHRM 6901 Week 2: Capstone Organizational Profile
- MHRM 6901 Week 3: Stated Versus Actual Gap Analysis
- MHRM 6901 Week 4: Workforce Planning Section Draft
- MHRM 6901 Week 5: Capstone Peer Workshop
- MHRM 6901 Week 6: Rewards Section Draft
- MHRM 6901 Week 7: Section Reconciliation Memo
- MHRM 6901 Week 8: Capstone Executive Summary
- MHRM 6901 Week 9: Capstone Appendix Set
- MHRM 6901 Week 11: Strategic HR Capstone Paper
- MHRM 6801 Week 10: Single Intervention Proposal
- MHRM 6751 Week 10: Closed Overseas Office Case Study
- MHRM 6701 Week 10: Hospital Laundry Outsourcing Case
- MHRM 6101 Week 10: HR Structure Memo
MHRM 6901 Week 10 questions, answered
Where can I find a free MHRM 6901 Week 10 sample paper?
The revision pass brief and its log summary are available here free of charge.
What four passes does the MHRM 6901 Week 10 brief describe?
Terms, tense, hedging and the wording of the recommendation.
How many changes were logged?
Seventy-four: 31 for terms, 22 for tense, 17 for hedging and 4 for the recommendation.
How was hedging handled?
Hedges were matched to the evidence: none for record counts, "about" for estimates and "may" only where evidence is mixed.
Did any finding change?
No; the passes changed style only, and figure corrections were logged separately.