Here are my comments and thoughts on Bastien's IA.

James knows his student well so is completely happy that it is all Bastien's own work. It is highly sophisticated piece of work and is in fact a master class in how to address all the IA criteria. In some ways addressing the criteria seems the rationale for the whole IA as it ticks every single one of the boxes in terms of what must be addressed to score full marks. To obtain that standard including the fluid way in which it is set out and expressed suggests to me that it would have taken a lot longer than 10 hours work – but that is not really an issue. So applying IA criteria both James and I feel it is worth 24/24 and indeed it was awarded a Grade 7 by the IB. (It should be noted that it was submitted and assessed on the old 2014 criteria as no IAs will be assessed on the new 2023 criteria until May 2025.)

How about the underlying chemistry? Here is where I have a slight problem. As Bastien correctly points out, simulations are inherently flawed as they rely on an algorithm which is constructed by humans. Reaction kinetics by definition depends upon experimental data and order of reaction cannot be determined any other way – all that can be arrived at is a theoretical model. Human progress is made when experimental results are not predictable. The discovery of cis-platin could never have come from a model arrived at by ChemReaX neither would ChemReaX have predicted Fleming’s attributed discovery of penicillin. In other words scientific progress actually depends upon serendipity which is an anathema to computer generated models. The IA says you must show you how you actually controlled the controlled variables. There seems to be a weakness in the IA here (on page 3). The likely impact of the controlled initial pressure (which is set at 1 bar for every simulation) does not make sense to me as it seems to be related to temperature, not pressure. The rate constant is not actually a variable.  For a simulation I can see that you can put in different values for the rate constant and see what effect it has but this is artificial. By its very definition for a chemical reaction it is a constant, not a variable, provided the temperature remains constant. Perhaps the fact that the simulation allows you to alter it is a real weakness in the whole methodology?

However this is nit-picking.. It is a very well-constructed investigation and lucidly written report .It fully deserves the Grade 7 it was awarded. I'm confident that it would still gain Grade 7 if it were to be assessed under the new 2023 criteia.