How a PA is actually evaluated
The submission goes to an evaluator who reads down the rubric. Each aspect gets one decision. Where every aspect is answered, the task is Passed and the competency units post. Where one is thin or missing, the whole submission comes back Not Yet Competent with comments naming the aspect, and you revise and resubmit. Nothing partial happens. There is no averaging, no compensating for a weak section with a strong one, and no credit for effort anywhere in the process.
Which is why writing a task like a paper is the classic mistake. A paper flows. A task has to be scannable: the thing the evaluator is looking for, findable in seconds, answered explicitly, with the evidence that aspect demanded sitting right beside it.
The parts of a task the desk builds
- The narrative, sectioned to the aspect list and written in the register the program expects.
- The scenario handling, where a course supplies a case, a company or a patient situation that every claim has to trace back to.
- Artifacts: spreadsheets whose formulas survive inspection, matrices, care plans, lesson plans, diagrams, code files.
- Source work wherever an evidence aspect applies, cited to the required style and checked entry by entry.
- The submission package itself, named and formatted the way the task instructions specify.
When a task comes back
Returns are ordinary and they are not a verdict on the writing. Builds change, evaluators read differently, and sometimes an aspect wants something the instructions phrased loosely. Forward the comments as soon as they arrive. The revision is free, it jumps the queue, and it addresses what was named instead of rewriting sections that already cleared.
Keep the original file. Resubmissions land better when the passing sections are left untouched, because the evaluator recognizes what they already accepted.
Courses that close with an objective assessment
Some courses end in a proctored objective assessment instead, and some carry both instruments. Nobody here sits a proctored exam, so those courses get a different build: your pre-assessment results read for gaps, worked problems in the format the exam uses, and condensed notes on the competencies the cut score is measuring. C955 and D430 are the two most requested in that shape.
Ordering by task
Every course page on this board opens straight into its task drawers, which makes ordering a two-click path: C207 for the data-driven decision task, C216 for the capstone sequence, D117 for assessment documentation, D668 for curriculum design. Or send a course code cold and the desk finds the current build. The free first task applies either way, and samples shows what a finished one looks like before you order.
Send it over
Questions students ask first
What exactly is a performance assessment?
It is the submitted work a WGU course is evaluated on: a paper, plan, analysis, presentation or code artifact, uploaded through the assessment portal and judged against a named list of rubric aspects rather than against a class curve.
How many aspects does a task usually carry?
It varies enormously by course. Short tasks run a handful; capstone tasks can carry dozens spread across several parts. That count drives the quote far more than page length does, which is why the aspect list is the first thing the desk asks for.
Will you handle a task with parts A through D?
Yes, and multi-part tasks are quoted as one job. Consistency between the parts is where students most often lose aspects, so a single writer carries all of them.
Can you repair a task of mine that came back?
That is a common order and it costs less than a fresh draft. Send your file with the evaluator comments and the flagged aspects get rebuilt while the rest stays intact.
Do the artifacts and the write-up have to agree?
They do, and disagreement between them is a quiet reason tasks return. If your spreadsheet says one thing and your narrative another, the evaluator will find it. Both are reconciled before delivery.