Use the Claim-Evidence-Reasoning framework to communicate the results of an investigation clearly, including at least one possible source of error.
Running a good investigation is only half the job; scientists also have to communicate their results clearly enough that someone else can understand and check their thinking. A reliable structure for this is Claim-Evidence-Reasoning, or CER: the Claim states what you concluded; the Evidence presents the specific data or observations that support it; the Reasoning explains WHY that evidence actually supports the claim, connecting it back to a real scientific idea rather than just restating the evidence.
A genuinely strong presentation also names at least one possible source of error or limitation, such as only running one trial, or a variable that was hard to fully control, instead of presenting results as if they were flawless. This is the same communication skill practiced in the ecosystem report and the model-an-organ project earlier this year, now applied specifically to a chemistry investigation.
Mastery looks like: They can write a complete CER statement for a given result, including reasoning that explains the connection rather than just restating the evidence, and name a plausible source of error.
Common stumbles: Writing reasoning that just repeats the evidence in different words instead of explaining WHY it supports the claim; presenting results with no acknowledgment of any limitation.