| Course | PUBH 9101 Completing Doctoral Capstone I |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 2 |
| Paper type | Deferred decision sweep |
| Length | About 630 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | PhD in Public Health |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PUBH 9101 Week 2
Twenty-Three Phrases That Leave a Choice Unmade: A Deferred Decision Sweep of a Risk-Based Pool Inspection Capstone Plan, Tracing Each to Its Owner and Deadline
Student Name
Walden University
PUBH 9101: Completing Doctoral Capstone I
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Twenty-Three Phrases That Leave a Choice Unmade: A Deferred Decision Sweep of a Risk-Based Pool Inspection Capstone Plan, Tracing Each to Its Owner and Deadline
How the Sweep Was Done
I read my capstone plan for the study of how Alder County's pools fared after inspections moved to a risk-based schedule, line by line and marked every phrase that sounded like a decision but postponed one: words such as relevant, suitable, as needed, appropriate and where possible. There were 23. Each was traced to the decision it hid, the person who must make it, the date by which it must be made, and what it blocks. The twelve that block the most work are shown below.
The Sweep
Table 1
Deferring phrases, the decisions beneath them, owners and deadlines
| Phrase and location | Decision it hides | Owner | Needed by | Blocks | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| "relevant inspections" (ch. 3, para. 4) | Which inspection types enter the analysis: routine only, or also complaint and follow-up visits | Author, with chair | Week 3 | Extraction procedure | |
| "a suitable window" (ch. 3, para. 6) | How many seasons before and after each district's switch | Author, with chair | Week 3 | Data request | |
| "critical violations" (ch. 3, para. 5) | Which violation codes count as critical | Division program manager | Week 4 | Outcome definition | |
| "as needed" (ch. 3, para. 9) | How many inspectors to approach | Author | Week 5 | Interview schedule | |
| "where available" (ch. 3, para. 7) | Whether to use district switch dates from memos or estimate them from records | Program manager | Week 4 | Time series analysis | |
| "appropriate approvals" (ch. 3, para. 12) | Which review board route and which data use agreement | University review board; division | Week 4 | Everything involving data | |
| "comparable pools" (ch. 3, para. 8) | Whether spas and splash pads are analyzed with pools or separately | Author, with chair | Week 3 | Tier analysis | |
| "standard methods" (ch. 3, para. 10) | Which model and how seasonality is handled | Author | Week 6 | Analysis section | |
| "thematic analysis" (ch. 3, para. 11) | Which approach and who codes | Author | Week 6 | Interview analysis | |
| "recent seasons" (ch. 1, para. 3) | Which years the problem statement describes | Author | Week 3 | Chapter 1 revision | |
| "key stakeholders" (ch. 1, para. 7) | Who receives findings | Author, with division | Week 8 | Dissemination plan | |
| "if time permits" (ch. 3, para. 13) | Whether a secondary outcome on immediate closures is included | Author, with chair | Week 6 | Scope statement | |
Eleven further phrases concerned wording or minor choices and are listed in an appendix.
Triage
The deferrals fall into three groups. Decisions I can make alone, such as the model and coding approach, I will make by Week 6 and record. Decisions that need the chair, such as the analysis window and whether spas are analyzed separately, go on the agenda for our next meeting. Decisions that belong to the division, such as which codes are critical and where switch dates are recorded, need a meeting with the program manager before the data request.
Two decisions shape the rest. The definition of critical violations matters because pool inspections record many kinds, and national data show that some, such as disinfectant concentration and safety equipment problems, appear in more than a tenth of routine inspections (Hlavsa et al., 2016). The analysis window matters because an interrupted time series needs enough time points on each side of the switch to separate a change from the existing trend (Lopez Bernal et al., 2017).
What Changed in the Plan
Every deferring phrase now carries a bracketed note naming its owner and date. When a decision is made, the phrase will be replaced with the decision itself, so the plan states what will happen rather than what might. A design is only as strong as the commitments it makes before data arrive (Shadish et al., 2002).
References
Hlavsa, M. C., Gerth, T. R., Collier, S. A., Dunbar, E. L., Rao, G., Epperson, G., Bramlett, B., Ludwig, D. F., Gomez, D., Stansbury, M. M., Miller, F., Warren, J., Nichol, J., Bowman, H., Huynh, B.-A., Loewe, K. M., Vincent, B., Tarrier, A. L., Shay, T., . . . Beach, M. J. (2016). Immediate closures and violations identified during routine inspections of public aquatic facilities: Network for Aquatic Facility Inspection Surveillance, five states, 2013. MMWR Surveillance Summaries, 65(5), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss6505a1
Lopez Bernal, J., Cummins, S., & Gasparrini, A. (2017). Interrupted time series regression for the evaluation of public health interventions: A tutorial. International Journal of Epidemiology, 46(1), 348-355. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyw098
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.
PUBH 9101 Week 2 instructions, in plain terms
Deferred decision assignments ask candidates to review their capstone documents for language that postpones choices. Prompts often ask candidates to list each deferring phrase, identify the decision it hides, and set an owner and deadline for resolving it. Some ask for a prioritized plan. Instructors want candidates to see how vague wording delays progress and weakens a design. Sweeps that list only a few obvious phrases, or that identify decisions without saying who must make them and when, generally earn less credit, since the purpose is to turn hidden uncertainty into a schedule of commitments.
How the PUBH 9101 Week 2 example is put together
The sweep explains its search rule first: every phrase that sounded like a decision but postponed one. A table shows the twelve most consequential of the 23 phrases, each with its chapter and paragraph, the decision it hides, its owner, a deadline and what it blocks. A triage section sorts the decisions into three groups by who must decide. Two decisions are singled out as shaping the rest, the definition of critical violations and the analysis window, each linked to evidence. A final section describes how the plan was marked so every deferral is replaced by a stated decision once made. Locations are given by chapter and paragraph so the chair can find each phrase quickly. The eleven minor deferrals are listed in an appendix rather than dropped, so the count of 23 can be verified.
PUBH 9101 Week 2 rubric: what earns full marks
Graders generally assess the thoroughness of the sweep, the accuracy with which hidden decisions are named, the realism of owners and deadlines and the quality of prioritization. Citing locations in the document makes the sweep verifiable and earns credit. Distinguishing decisions the candidate can make from those requiring others shows awareness of the capstone's dependencies. Linking key decisions to the design's needs, such as the number of time points, demonstrates methodological understanding. Sweeps that change the document itself, rather than only listing problems, tend to be marked as the most useful. Graders also look for evidence that the sweep changed the plan, such as bracketed owner notes beside each phrase. A clear rule for what counts as a deferring phrase lets a reader repeat the sweep on another document.
Common PUBH 9101 Week 2 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Search your plan for words like relevant, suitable, appropriate, as needed and where possible. For each one, ask what choice it is hiding and write that choice as a question. Decide who must answer it: you, your chair or someone in your setting. Set a date by which it must be answered, based on what it blocks. Mark the phrase in your document so it cannot slip by again. If your plan is full of wording you cannot pin down, we can run a sample sweep on your chapters.
Get a PUBH 9101 Week 2 example written to your instructions
Paste your approved plan, or its method chapter, along with the Week 2 prompt and rubric. Every phrase that leaves a choice open is quoted in a table with the decision behind it, an owner and a deadline, then sorted into three piles. The first sweep costs nothing and lands in 24 to 48 hours; the plan swept here belongs to no real department.
More PUBH 9101 papers and PhD in Public Health samples
- PUBH 9101 Week 1: Status Memo
- PUBH 9101 Week 3: Procedure Draft
- PUBH 9101 Week 4: Source Access Plan
- PUBH 9101 Week 5: Dependencies Plan
- PUBH 9101 Week 6: Sizing Arithmetic
- PUBH 9101 Week 7: Contingency Note
- PUBH 9101 Week 8: Out-of-Scope Statement
- PUBH 9101 Week 9: Peer Stall Test
- PUBH 9101 Week 10: Promise Audit
- PUBH 9101 Week 11: Working Document
- PUBH 9102 Week 2: Protocol Comparison
- PUBH 8546 Week 2: Case Definition Memo
- PUBH 9103 Week 2: Closing Argument Draft
- PUBH 8503 Week 2: Question Typing
PUBH 9101 Week 2 questions, answered
Where can I find a free PUBH 9101 Week 2 sample paper?
The Week 2 sweep is shown in full above, listing deferred decisions in a pool inspection capstone plan.
How many deferring phrases did the sweep find?
Twenty-three, with the twelve that block the most work shown in the table.
What does "a suitable window" hide?
How many seasons before and after each district's switch the analysis will cover.
Who decides which violations are critical?
The county division's program manager, before the data request.
What happens to each phrase once decided?
It is replaced in the plan with the decision itself.