I have started to leave some notes on your posts.
I would urge you to trust me regarding the outlines and methods for the projects. (You questioning the indicators and the project focus is very welcome, ie the content and purpose!!) The intent here is to bring people from unit/organization analog parametrics through digital parametrics- as seen in the Parametric Places 2012, 2013 and lcaBCN 2013 NJIT programs. It is also helpful for the book, blog and final presentation that overall format follow be consistent so the viewer can evaluate your content- not your presentation approach. Please consider using the assignment outline and or template. We can clarify which one for the book, blog and presentation but you’ll eventually have to do both.
Consider the strong graphics of the Canine Urban Santuary project I just posted. The clarity is powerful and helpful. I especially see the effectiveness of the infographics / statistics: one highlight color; keys on most diagrams; hierarchy of big and small graphics and clear comparison data. *This took iterations to evolve both the content and the graphics. This was very focused research- I was very critical from the beginning. Bjarke Ingels last year talked about 3 month studios being mostly enough time to do research alone. Overall the strength of their research and working of the Grasshopper definition (with only minimal prior exposure to GH) made the urban analysis tool compelling despite the specificity of the topic of dogs. (Also keep in mind their program was not done for credit vs UO for 7 credits. No Dan as TA either and all undergrads.)