Laid out as a grid of six review criteria against planned sections, with gaps left visibly empty, the Week 3 criteria map example in PUBH 6213 shows where points are won. Searches like "pubh 6213 week 3 assignment example", "pubh6213 week 3 sample" and "pubh 6213 week 3 example" land here.
What a finished PUBH 6213 Week 3 criteria map looks like
The map is a single wide table spanning two pages. Rows are the announcement's criteria in its order: statement of need, program approach, organizational capacity, partnerships, measurement, and budget and sustainability. Columns give the criterion's wording quoted, the relative weight the announcement assigns it described in words, the funder's terms that should reappear, the section and paragraph planned to answer it, and a status of answered, partial or empty. Two rows come back partial. Sustainability has only a sentence, and partnerships lack any evidence that the dental clinic has agreed to accept referrals. Under the table, a brief note ranks the gaps by the weight of the criterion they sit under and assigns each to a later week of drafting, so the map ends as a plan rather than a verdict.
How a PUBH 6213 Week 3 example is structured
Criteria form the rows because the announcement's structure governs, and the proposal's sections are what get fitted to it, never the other way around. Quoting each criterion keeps its exact wording in front of the drafting, which matters because a reviewer's score sheet uses the same words. The weight column is described in words, heaviest to lightest, so effort can be matched to value without pretending every criterion counts equally. The terms column is the map's distinctive feature: it lists words from each criterion that the answering section must reuse in working sentences, so a reviewer scanning for them finds them. Status is deliberately blunt, with no category between partial and answered to hide in. The ranking note turns the map from a diagnosis into a plan, attaching each gap to the week in which it will be closed.
Criteria as rows
The six criteria appear in the sequence the funder lists them, each quoted, so the table reads the way a score sheet does.
Weight in words
Relative importance is described rather than numbered, heaviest first, drawn from the announcement's own statement of emphasis.
The funder's terms
Words each answer must contain, such as reach, readiness and sustainability, listed so they reappear inside sentences rather than in headings alone.
Answered, partial, empty
A blunt status for each criterion. Two partial rows, sustainability and partnerships, are the map's main finding.
Gaps ranked and assigned
The note under the table orders gaps by criterion weight and ties each to the drafting week that will close it.
Where marks go in PUBH 6213 Week 3
What a map reveals decides its grade more than how it looks. A table showing every criterion as answered, before the narrative exists, reads as optimism; a map that finds the thin rows is doing its job. The quoted criteria are compared with the announcement, and a criterion merged into another or renamed signals that the funder's structure was not respected. The terms column is credited when the vocabulary is genuinely the funder's and specific to each criterion, not a generic list repeated down the page. Correspondence matters: each planned section should plausibly answer its row, and pointing the sustainability criterion at the budget alone misunderstands what the funder asked for. Maps that end with the table, offering no ranking and no plan for the gaps, stop at diagnosis and are graded accordingly.
Get a PUBH 6213 Week 3 example written to your instructions
Share the mapping prompt and rubric, the announcement's review criteria and whatever outline of your proposal exists, and a criteria map with gaps marked comes back in 24-48h; the first request is free. The six criteria and the missing referral agreement belong to an imaginary application, and your map measures the draft you are actually building.
PUBH 6213 Week 3 questions, answered
Should the map use the announcement's point values?
If the announcement publishes points, recording them makes the weighting exact, and many public announcements do publish them. The example describes weight in words because its composite announcement ranks criteria without numbers. Either way, the aim is to spend the most drafting effort where the most score is available. Where points are requested explicitly, they go in that column.
What belongs in the funder's terms column?
Words the announcement uses when describing what it wants under each criterion, especially ones a reviewer would scan for, such as reach, readiness or sustainability. The example lists three to five per row. Generic grant vocabulary does not belong there. If a term appears in the criterion itself, your answering section should use it in a sentence doing real work, not only in a heading.
How is a criteria map different from an outline?
An outline follows the applicant's logic; a map follows the funder's. The example's rows are the criteria and its columns show whether the planned sections answer them, which an outline cannot show. Some sections of this course ask for both, the map first. Your outline will usually improve once the map exposes which criteria have no home in it yet.