Audit Memo 2: Evidence & Robustness

CEVE 421/521 Final Project

Overview

Due: Friday of Week 12 (April 10)

This memo examines the evidence base and robustness of your chosen climate plan. Building on the XLRM mapping from Memo 1, you will critique the Valuation approaches used and assess whether the plan’s recommendations are robust to the uncertainties you identified.

Learning Objectives

By completing this memo, you will demonstrate your ability to:

1. Identify and critique valuation methods used in climate planning
2. Assess whether a plan adequately addresses deep uncertainty
3. Apply robustness concepts to critique real-world decision-making

Requirements

Submit a 2-3 page memo (PDF) containing:

1. Valuation Analysis

Identify how the plan values costs and benefits:

Valuation Element	Plan’s Approach	Critique
Discount rate	e.g., 3% real	Is this appropriate? Why?
Damage estimation	e.g., depth-damage curves	Source? Limitations?
Non-market values	e.g., statistical value of life	How are these handled?
Time horizon	e.g., 50 years	Appropriate for climate?

Address:

• Are valuation choices explicitly stated or implicit?
• Do the valuation methods align with best practices from the course?
• What values or perspectives might be underweighted?

2. Robustness Assessment

Evaluate how the plan handles uncertainty:

Robustness Element	Present?	Description
Multiple scenarios	Yes/No	Which scenarios? How selected?
Sensitivity analysis	Yes/No	What parameters varied?
Adaptive strategies	Yes/No	Trigger points? Decision rules?
Worst-case analysis	Yes/No	Regret minimization?

Address:

• Does the plan optimize for a single “best guess” or consider a range of futures?
• Are there provisions for adapting if conditions differ from expectations?
• What vulnerabilities might emerge under scenarios not considered?

3. Evidence & Robustness Critique

In 1-2 paragraphs, provide your overall assessment:

• Transparency: Are data sources, valuation choices, and methods clearly documented?
• Strengths: What does the plan do well in its evidence base and handling of uncertainty?
• Weaknesses: Where are the biggest gaps in evidence or robustness?
• Recommendations: What specific improvements would strengthen the analysis?

Citations

Use proper citations when referencing specific sections, data, or claims from the plan. Include page numbers or section references so the reader can verify your analysis (e.g., “City of Houston, 2020, p. 42”). Use American Geophysical Union (AGU) reference style. You may use any reference management software; we recommend Zotero with the MS Word plugin or BibTeX with LaTeX/Typst.

Submission

Submit your memo as a PDF to Canvas by 11:59 PM on the due date.

Grading Rubric

Criterion	Points
Valuation methods clearly identified and critiqued	30
Robustness assessment thorough and accurate	30
Constructive critique with specific recommendations	20
Professional writing and formatting	20
Total	100