Fluent in WGU.

Treat it as a map of what you do not yet know rather than a verdict. It is most useful exactly where it is unflattering, because the areas it marks weak are the areas the objective assessment will find as well. A quick, confident result whose detail nobody reads afterwards is the commonest reason a first attempt goes badly, and second attempts cost weeks.

It is the school's expectation of pace and your standing is measured against it, so it is not something to quietly ignore. The order inside it has more room than most students realize. Where prerequisites allow, courses can be attempted in the sequence that clears assessments soonest rather than the sequence printed, and that is a conversation to have with your mentor rather than around them.

The presentation, always, along with any demonstration recorded as evidence that you did the work yourself. The proposal and the written project can be built with you, section by section, against the rubric aspects an evaluator will mark. The genuinely useful part is sequencing: a proposal approved slowly leaves no room for the project, and the presentation then gets made in a panic.

It matters more than almost anything else in this format. Submissions enter a queue, so a task sent close to the end of a term can return unsatisfactory with no time left to answer the aspects that failed. Everything is filed with a deliberate buffer, often a week earlier than you would have chosen, which makes a returned task an inconvenience instead of a lost term.

It is not, and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Western Governors University. Nobody here evaluates submissions, mentors students for the school, or has any way of influencing what comes back from an evaluator. The familiarity on offer is with the format itself: what a rubric aspect is asking for, and how a task reads to the person marking against one.