They know how to follow rules (Appropriate: 4.8 avg) and they can articulate ideas (Explain It: 4.0 avg). Where they struggled: thinking through how their product affects real people's worth and wellbeing. This is the theological core of the course and it needs explicit scaffolding in the fall run — more than one session.

Four students presented live in the final class. One was the most polished presenter by a wide margin. One drew genuine peer surprise at the technical sophistication of their build — the best peer feedback moment of the course. One crossed the finish line on a late-crystallizing project. Two were absent for separate reasons and need individual follow-up.

Confirmed across all six students. Peer discussion momentum came from Discernment and Enablement moves, not natural group leadership. The fall cohort should watch for this — even one Galvanizing student changes the group dynamic significantly. Consider recruiting intentionally or building more structured leadership roles into the curriculum.