Students will enter the project through a mystery-based launch, analyze redacted and media texts to surface tensions between secrecy and accountability, hear legal and civic framing from a community expert, and draft an initial evidence-based stance with questions they will pursue in later phases.

Students will test an early position on whistleblowing by examining competing perspectives, generating a focused case-study inquiry question, and drafting a one-page claim with reasons, possible counterevidence, and a revision goal informed by feedback.

Students will gather and evaluate sources on the Pentagon Papers and post-Cold War whistleblower cases, sort evidence that supports and challenges their emerging position, and complete a checked evidence chart that identifies strong counterevidence and next research questions for argument revision.

Students will turn their source maps and evidence charts into defensible public arguments by drafting claim structures, testing warrants and counterarguments, revising through critique, and submitting a publication-ready op-ed pitch supported by credible historical, legal, and multimedia evidence.

Students will present polished public arguments at The Transparency Exchange, defend their reasoning with case evidence and legal understanding, and complete a final self-check on how their argument changed through feedback and revision.