Sample completed Capstone — Distinction gradeEasyStagecraft Tier 1A · Module 6 · anonymised submission from a 2025 candidate · with examiner annotations · for REFERENCE not for COPYING · final grade Distinction · 11 of 12 criteria at Distinction

How to use. The Capstone scenario for this sample was a different show — Annie at "Riverside Grammar" — but the structure of a Distinction-grade response is identical regardless of scenario. Read for: how decisions are documented, how risks are treated specifically, how rationale is shown (not just outcome). Where you see EXAMINER NOTE tags, those are the assessor's published feedback. Do not copy this candidate's specific decisions for your Les Mis Capstone — assessor algorithms detect direct lifts. Use this as a tone + structure guide.

Candidate snapshot

Candidate (anonymised)	"E. Carter" · Head of Drama · Riverside Grammar (Vic regional)
Submission date	Oct 2025
Production in Capstone	Annie (MTI School Edition) · Year 7-9 cast · school of 480 students · 220-seat venue
Final grade	DISTINCTION · 11/12 criteria at Distinction, 1 at Credit

Deliverable 1 — Risk register + SWMS pack (excerpt)

Carter's risk register identified 16 hazards (vs the 12 minimum). The standout treatment was the trap-door reveal in Act 1:

Hazard 4 — Trap-door reveal for "Maybe" reprise

Description	Cast member (Annie, Yr-8) emerges through a manually-operated trap-door on a 600mm rise during reprise. Trap requires below-stage crew (× 2) to lift on cue.
Uncontrolled L × C	4 × 4 = 16 (high) — fall hazard for cast + crush hazard for below-stage crew
Controls applied	(1) Substitute: removed the manual trap reveal entirely; replaced with a lighting transition. Hazard eliminated. (2) If reinstated for 2026: full SWMS · below-stage crew × 2 minimum · 4-step verbal countdown · brake mechanism · LED warning to cast.
Residual L × C	0 (eliminated)
Rationale	Audience would not notice the difference between trap reveal and lighting transition (verified by post-show parent survey, last year). Effect-eliminated route preserves the emotional beat with zero residual risk. Director initially resisted; the alternative was workshopped at rehearsal week 5 and approved.

Examiner note · D1 Distinction-grade. Hazard isn't just scored — it's resolved by elimination, with rationale, with director-buy-in process documented, with audience-perception research cited. The "0 residual" line is the kind of decision schools should be making but rarely document this clearly.

Deliverable 2 — Production schedule (excerpt)

Carter's bump-in matrix included a labour-cost forecast aligned with the P&L (Distinction criterion). Sample row:

Sun bump-in · Day 2 · 13:15-15:30 block

Activity	Crew	Hrs	Forecast cost	Actual cost
LX focus + first plot (Acts 1-3)	LX tech (paid) × 1 + crew × 2 (school)	2.25	A$ 326	A$ 326
Sound RF coordination + monitor setup	SND tech (paid) × 1 + crew × 1 (school)	2.25	A$ 259	A$ 259
Backstage props table layout	SM (school) + cast × 4 (rehearsing)	1.5	A$ 0 (in-house)	A$ 0
Block sub-total			A$ 585	A$ 585

Examiner note · D2 Linking schedule blocks to P&L dollars is what made this Distinction. Most candidates show one OR the other. The cost-forecast column means the principal can ask "what does Sunday afternoon cost the school?" and the candidate has an answer.

Deliverable 3 — Team + delegation (excerpt from SM contract)

Carter's SM was 16. The contract included an explicit clause covering the Yr-12 SM resigning hypothetical from Module 6:

Section 8 · Continuity

If the SM is unable to continue in the role (illness, family circumstance, school discipline) at any point between bump-in (Day 1) and final performance:

Deputy SM (D. Park, Yr 11) assumes the role within 12 hours of notification.
PM (E. Carter) covers Deputy SM responsibilities until a temporary Deputy is appointed (typically by end of next school day).
Cue book is the SM's working copy; a backup is held by PM + LX HOD, updated at end of each rehearsal.
The departed SM is not asked to provide handover documentation under duress; the cue book + run sheet + Daily Call Notice trail is the handover.
Cast + crew are informed that the change is operational, not a comment on the SM's performance, in a 2-minute SM-led standup.

Examiner note · D3 The "SM resigns 7 days out" hypothetical is the Capstone's stress-test. Carter built the contingency INTO the SM contract — pre-emptively. That's senior-grade thinking. The "departed SM not asked to provide handover under duress" line is especially humane and shows the candidate understands a 16-year-old's circumstances.

Deliverable 4 — Compliance pack (excerpt — streaming position)

Streaming-rights position

Decision: Annie will NOT be streamed.

Rationale: MTI Australasia confirmed in writing (15 Aug 2025) that Annie School Edition is not licensed for live or recorded streaming on any platform — public or private. Archival recording for cast-family viewing is permitted under "personal/educational use" exemption. The school's position is therefore: (a) one archival recording of Saturday evening performance, encrypted, distributed via private Vimeo link with expiry, only to cast families who returned the image-release form with streaming-channel marked YES; (b) absolutely no live streaming; (c) public release of any clip requires MTI's written consent on a per-clip basis (none expected).

Communicated to parents in: Comms #2 (week-7) and reiterated in Comms #5 (week-2). FAQ document attached to school's production page.

Records retained: MTI confirmation email · school's archival distribution log · per-family Vimeo access record.

Examiner note · D4 Specific, in writing, parent-facing, audit-ready. Most candidates write "streaming not licensed" and stop. Carter wrote the position, the rationale, the implementation, the comms, and the records. Bulletproof.

Deliverable 5 — P&L (Carter's actuals)

Line	Forecast	Actual	Variance reason
Total costs	A$ 22,400	A$ 21,860	Set materials underspent by A$ 540 (donated timber from a parent's building site)
Total income	A$ 22,200	A$ 23,815	Sold out × 3 performances (estimated 75%, actual 88% average)
Net	(A$ 200)	A$ 1,955 surplus	Banked toward 2026 production

Examiner note · D5 Honest forecasting (small expected deficit) → outperformance (small actual surplus) is the pattern of a candidate who knows the difference between a plan and a hope. The forecast deficit was BUDGETED-FOR, not aspirational. Distinction.

Deliverable 6 — Reflection (extract, ~200 words of the 700 total)

"The framework that surprised me most was the accountability matrix from Module 3. I'd run two previous productions believing 'good communication' was the answer to most coordination problems. The matrix forced me to acknowledge that good communication is what you do WHEN the structure has decided who decides — not a replacement for it. The first time my director bypassed the PM-to-contractor channel mid-production, I had the matrix on my office wall and the conversation took 6 minutes instead of 30. That alone justified the course."

"The contractor BS-line I'd be most ready to challenge in 2026 is the 'compliance documentation' fixed-fee that appears on every LX hire quote. Until this course, I assumed it was a regulatory thing. Now I know it's their cost of doing business + I'm paying for it twice. The line is going to be the first one I question on every quote next year."

"The single change I'd make to how I run productions now: I'd run the post-mortem. I never did. Last year's production had 6 things wrong with it that I'd fixed by week 5 of 2025's planning — but only because I happened to remember. With a 1-page post-mortem document in the production folder, future-me wouldn't need to remember; future-me would just open the document."

Examiner note · D6 Specific, personal, framework-tied, future-applied. Compare this to a generic-reflection failure mode: "I learned a lot about WHS and I will use this in my school." Carter's reflection is the difference between completing a course + applying it.

Why this candidate scored Distinction across the board

Every decision had a rationale visible to the reader. Not just "we decided X" — "we decided X because Y, with Z fallback if Y proved wrong."
Numbers showed up where words were tempting. Costs, hours, percentages, dates — Carter quantified everything that could be quantified.
Risks were resolved, not just listed. Most candidates score hazards. Carter resolved the top three by elimination or higher-order control + showed the resolution path.
The candidate's future self appeared in every deliverable. Templates were customised to the school. Frameworks were tied to specific 2026 implementations. The post-mortem template was pre-completed with 2025's hypotheticals.
The reflection wasn't a summary — it was a commitment. Specific things that will change. With dates.

Where Carter was NOT a Distinction (criterion 7, Credit)

The one Credit (not Distinction) criterion was Stakeholder Communications. The parent comms calendar was complete and specific, but the crisis-comms "what-if" was sketched rather than drafted — Carter wrote "would handle case-by-case" rather than providing a draft message template. Distinction would have required at least one fully drafted crisis-comms email for a postponement scenario.

Lesson: if you can draft it, draft it. If you write "would handle case-by-case" anywhere in your Capstone, replace that section with the actual handling.