Category: Business and management

Compose an out-of-class, individually written paper of 1,5002,000 words (excluding the Cover and Works Cited pages) that offers a comparative analysis of one film from the approved course list in relation to its source text (e.g., short story, novel, play, song, graphic narrative, or series).

Writing through the lens of adaptation, select one specific aspect of transformationsuch as narrative voice/point of view, structure and pacing, genre conventions, characterization and performance, dialogue, visual style, sound/music, symbolism/motif, world-building, or serialityand examine how the screen version reinterprets or reconfigures that element through medium-specific choices.

Your goal is to demonstrate, through close reading of both works, how meaning is produced differently when a story moves from page (or another source form) to the screen. Support your argument with peer-reviewed academic books and journal articles only, situate your discussion within relevant adaptation theory and film studies scholarship (such as course bibliography), and follow MLA academic writing conventions, including a clear thesis and a Works Cited page.

Assignment Description & Requirements:

1. Description:

• Compose an individually authored, original paper of 1,5002,000 words (excluding Cover and Works Cited pages) that offers an in-depth critical analysis of one film from the approved list in relation to its source text (play, novel, short story, song, graphic narrative, etc.). Your essay must be comparative: select one specific aspect of adaptationsuch as narrative voice and point of view, genre conventions, structure and pacing, characterization and performance, dialogue, visual style, sound/music, or symbolism/motifand examine how the film transforms, reinterprets, or reconfiguresthat element through medium-specific choices. The goal is to demonstrate, through close reading of both works, how meaning is produced differently when a story moves from page (or another source form) to the screen.

1. Goal:

• Your paper must be analytical rather than descriptive, organized around a clear and central thesis.
• Contextualize your discussion within the issues and concepts covered in the course.
• Use only peer-reviewed scholarly articles or textbooks as your bibliographical sources.
• Follow the MLA academic writing style (9th edition). .

1. Structure:
2. Your essay must include:

• Cover Page: Title, name, course info.
• Introduction: Present your research question, thesis, and methodology.
• Main Body: Two to three sections that may include the film’s subject, historical context, literature review, analysis, findings, etc. Each section should be named according to the main topic discussed.
• Conclusion: Summarize your findings and respond to the thesis presented in your introduction.
• Works Cited: Following MLA style.
• Paper Sample: Analysis of the film Jojo Rabbit:

1. Submission:

• Submit your paper on D2L by 11:59 pm on the due date.
• Format: Times New Roman, 12pt, double-spaced, 1″ margins on all sides, Microsoft Word Document (.docx).
• Filename: FilmTitle_LastName_FirstName.docx (e.g., Dune_Smith_John.docx).
• Plagiarism: All submissions will be scrutinized by Turnitin. Ensure your work is original and properly cited. .

1. Evaluation Criteria (30 marks => 5 Marks per Criterion–see more details ):
2. (50%):

• Organization & Structure: Clear title, proper headings, adherence to word count.
• Academic Style: Follow MLA guidelines.
• Works Cited: Must include at least the three mandatory references above. It must also include any additional articles, books and films cited or quoted in the paper.
• (50%):
• Introduction & Conclusion: Develop a coherent argument and respond to it in your conclusion. Avoid excessive citations in these sections.
• Cinematic Analysis: Demonstrate a precise and well-developed analysis of the films cinematic and formal elementssuch as mise-en-scne, cinematography, editing, sound, performance, and visual or aural stylewith explicit attention to how these medium-specific choices function within the adaptation. Analysis should go beyond description to explain how film form reshapes, emphasizes, or departs from the strategies of the source text in relation to the selected aspect of adaptation.
• Comparative Thematic / Adaptive Analysis: Develop a focused and sustained comparative analysis of one clearly defined aspect of adaptation (e.g., narrative voice and point of view, genre conventions, structure and pacing, characterization and performance, dialogue, sound/music, symbolism or motif). The discussion should critically examine how this element operates differently in the source text and the film, and how these differences produce new meanings through the shift in medium. The analysis should be supported by close readings of both works and situated within relevant adaptation and film studies scholarship.

Hello,

This is for a job search for my VA education program. You will be filling out the attached blank form utilizing indeed job search, and any other job platform online. Please fill out all appropriate fields and only include locations and addresses in the United States of America. Do this assignment as though you were personally going to enter the workforce as a Psychology Graduate Student. Also, for your reference see the filled out form that I did for January. You must do 25 job search entries. Start with an early date in February and go chronologically for the whole month of February.

The Question Imagine it is Monday morning. You just became CEO. Your organization uses AI in multiple places. You have a team, a budget, and one week to implement real governance. You cannot do everything at once. What is the single rule you would implement first? Your Options A Human Review Rule AI never makes final decisions alone. Humans stay in the loop for all high-stakes decisions. A Transparency Rule Everything AI does has to be explainable. You can understand how it reached its conclusions. An Audit Rule Regular third-party checks on AI systems. External validation that governance is actually happening. A Deployment Rule No new AI goes live without formal approval. Every new system requires sign-off before launch. Your Response Should Include Pick one rule. (Only one. You cannot do everything in a week.) Explain why you chose it. What does this rule prevent or catch that the others do not? Give a concrete example. Use a case from class (State Farm, Watson, Sports Illustrated, Progressive Insurance, Hiring, Education detectors) or an example from your own experience. Show the tradeoff. What does your choice NOT address? What vulnerability remains? Why This Matters There is no single right answer. But your answer helps shape how you think about risk. Some of you will choose prevention (stop bad things before they deploy). Others will choose detection (catch problems early). Others will choose accountability (know who is responsible). All of those are legitimate governance moves. But notice what you are not doing. You are not waiting. You are not hoping the model works out. You are not trusting the data scientist alone. You are making a deliberate choice about how to control a risky technology. That is exactly what governance is. The Bigger Picture In your careers, whether you are running a company, leading a team, sitting on a board, or advising an organization, you will face this exact question. Please post your response by the end of day Sunday so that everyone has time to read and engage with one anothers thinking. You are expected to read at least two classmates responses and comment thoughtfully on each. In your comments, explain whether you agree or disagree with their choice, or how you would prioritize their rule differently, and why. This discussion is not graded, but the quality of your engagement will directly support your understanding of these governance concepts and prepare you for future applications.

Reflect on how LinkedIns guiding statements influence how the organization operates.

Respond to the following:

• Do you think mission, vision, and values statements are important to the success of an organization? Why or why not?
• Do you think some organizations can operate effectively without developing these three statements? Why or why not?

Milestone For this modules milestone, you are encouraged to submit a 1,0001,500-word APA-style reflective essay that aligns with the modules Course Learning Outcomes (CLO). Your essay should explain, summarize, and critically evaluate key concepts learned in this module. Additionally, provide your insights and propose solutions to address the central issues. Additionally, you are required to create a 35-minute reflection video summarizing the key points of your essay.

Step 1: Summarize Key Learnings Provide a concise summary of the key concepts, theories, and insights gained from this module. Highlight their relevance and impact on your understanding of the subject matter.

Step 2: Identify and Critique Key Concepts Analyze the core ideas from the module by evaluating their strengths, limitations, and real-world applications. Offer a critical perspective and discuss how these concepts relate to professional or industry challenges.

Step 3: Support with Scholarly Research Use at least three scholarly sources to strengthen your discussion. Properly integrate and cite them in APA format.

Step 4: Final Review of Your Essay Ensure your essay is clear, well-structured, and free of errors while adhering to academic writing standards.

Step 5: Create a Reflection Video Record a 3~5-minute video (PPT voiceover or recorded video) summarizing key insight. Discuss your though process, evaluate your critiques, and explore real-world applications.

Step 7: Submit Your Final Work Double-check both files before submission:

• Essay: Well-organized, properly formatted, and meeting all requirements.
• Video: Clearly articulated and aligned with your written analysis.

Complete Checklist for Submission

Did you…

• Ensure your final submission is clear, engaging, and well-structured.
• Present a compelling and logically developed analysis of the selected issue.
• Incorporate innovative solutions and critical thinking in your evaluation.
• Support your analysis with at least three scholarly sources, properly cited in APA format.
• Demonstrate a strong connection between course concepts, research findings, and proposed strategies.
• Review for clarity, coherence, and alignment with assessment criteria.
• Verify that your insights effectively address the identified problem with well-reasoned solutions.
• Ensure your reflection video concisely summarizes key findings, evaluates your logic, and proposes real-world applications.
• Double-check the accuracy of composition, adherence to APA formatting, and overall completeness before submission.

Hello Class, We have reached Module #3 of the semester which focuses on Chapter 5: Manufacturing and Chapter 6: Integrated Operations Management. Chapter 5 goes in-depth on manufacturing for businesses and the quality imperative that is associated with it. Any time we purchase a product it has already been evaluated in areas that have explored their dimensions of quality, total quality management and tested against quality standards set forth by the company (and regulators). Major names in the business world (for example, Nike) implore manufacturing perspectives such as brand power, volume, variety, constraints and lead time. As mentioned in previous discussion boards, a strategy of manufacturing must be broached which could include the following: basic manufacturing processes, matching (strategy to requirements), alternative manufacturing strategies and evaluating the total cost of manufacturing. As manufacturing has evolved over the years businesses have become more proficient in areas such as mass customization, lean systems, flexible manufacturing, six sigma, requirements planning, design for manufacture and logistics. Chapter 6 discusses the importance of integrations operations planning. Supply chain planning must have visibility, simultaneous resource consideration and resource utilization. Applications of supply chain planning are many, but this chapter focuses on demand planning, production planning, logistics planning and inventory deployment. The S&OP (sales and operations planning) process is discussed in detail thus focusing on the process itself and how to go about making it work to a company’s benefit. The APS (advanced planning and scheduling) overview breaks down the various components of APS, as well as, exploring the supply chain planning benefits, the supply chain planning considerations and integrated business planning. Lastly, the all important topic of forecasting comes to light. There are 5 important aspects of forecasting: requirements, components, process, techniques and the all important accuracy of the practice. Once again, think of the pandemic and how forecasting could make or break a business. After you read chapters 5 & 6 in the textbook, please answer the following questions: Why would a company’s cost of manufacturing and procurement tend to increase as the firm changes from MTP to an MTO strategy? Why would inventory costs tend to decrease? (Page 115, Study Question #3) Describe the S&OP process. What are the major trade-offs that must be considered? (Page 145, Study Question #2)

In this assessment, you will write a paper to demonstrate an understanding of the qualitative inquiry technique. You might consider using the qualitative inquiry technique to conduct your DBA Capstone Project. Employers expect DBA graduates to be familiar with a variety of problem-solving techniques. You will use the course materials and articles you find in the Capella Library to demonstrate an understanding of the qualitative inquiry technique. This activity will give you an opportunity to locate and analyze scholarly literature regarding appropriate application of research techniques for conducting research and workplace projects.

Locate and read two qualitative inquiry studies.

Review the results to identify two studies in which the authors addressed and researched business problems, and not social, health-related, or government problems.

Some qualitative inquiry studies are included in the reading lists that you are welcome to review and use as well for this paper.

Download and read the two articles.

In a 35 page paper (excluding the title page and references page), describe the following:

• The business problem studied.
• The data collection technique.
• The number of participants.
• The professional qualifications of the participants.
• An overview of the findings of the study.
• The practical implications derived from the study.

End your paper with a concluding paragraph regarding how you might use the qualitative inquiry technique to conduct your project.

Use the following heading structure:

• Study 1.
• Business Problem.
• Data Collection Technique.
• Participants.
• Overview of the Findings.
• Practical Implications.
• Study 2.
• Business Problem.
• Data Collection Technique.
• Participants.
• Overview of the Findings.
• Practical Implications.
• Conclusion.

Scholarship: Use two scholarly sources to support your main points and analysis.

Please review my lab report and ensure there is no plagiarism or AI-generated text, and that the introduction aligns with the lab content.

Defense-Ready APA 7 and Marymount Dissertation Format Audit Scope, evidence base, and standards applied This audit reviews the edited Word manuscript you provided (Maxine_Morris_Dissertation_Edited_For_Defense.docx). The file currently contains a title page, Chapters 13 content (partial), tables, a conceptual diagram (SmartArt), and a References section; it does not include several dissertation front-matter elements typically required for institutional submission (e.g., approval/signature page, abstract page, table of contents, list of tables/figures). Because program-specific dissertation manuals are not always publicly posted, the Marymount-specific formatting baseline in this report is triangulated from (a) Marymounts dissertation/thesis deposit guidance (submission workflow to ProQuest + institutional repository) and (b) a publicly available Marymount dissertation document that reflects how Marymount dissertations are formatted in practice (title page structure, approval page, page-number placement, etc.). The APA 7th edition baseline is drawn from official APA Style guidance on references/tables and widely used APA 7 implementation guidance (e.g., Purdue OWL summaries). Where Marymount practice and generic APA student/professional paper conventions diverge, this report prioritizes Marymount dissertation conventions (since dissertation formatting is an institutional deliverable distinct from a course paper). Document-level APA and Marymount compliance findings The manuscript already meets several baseline mechanics (page size and margins are set to US Letter and 1-inch margins), but the header/running-head logic, front matter, paragraph formatting, and style-based heading system need substantial correction before a defense and any submission workflow. Current vs required formatting Element Marymount dissertation practice (observed) APA 7 baseline (general) Status in your Word file Required correction Title page Uses dissertation-style title page (A dissertation presented to the Faculty…, location/date), not a course-paper title block APA student/professional title pages exist, but dissertations often follow institutional templates Your title page resembles a student paper layout rather than Marymounts dissertation title-page structure Replace title page with Marymount dissertation title-page structure (template provided below) Approval/signature page Present in Marymount dissertation example Not an APA requirement; institution-specific Missing Insert approval page per your college/program requirements Abstract Present as a standalone labeled page in Marymount example Abstract is commonly required for dissemination/submission; ProQuest has manuscript expectations Missing Add abstract page (and any required abstract formatting per your program/ProQuest) Table of contents + lists TOC appears in Marymount example (with hierarchical headings and page numbers) APA does not strongly standardize TOC for long works; institutions often require it Missing Build TOC from Word heading styles; add List of Tables/Figures Running head label Marymount example shows page number only (no running head) APA 7 removed the Running head: label; student papers typically dont require a running head First-page header contains Running Head: + a very long all-caps title; subsequent pages use a long title header Delete Running Head: label; adopt Marymount-style header of page number only (or confirm if your program requires a short running head) Pagination placement Marymount example shows page number at top right Page numbers are required in most APA formats; placement depends on template Page numbers appear, but header also includes an oversized title/running head Keep page number at top right; remove title/running head text from header Font Usually consistent, readable serif font (varies by institution) APA 7 allows several fonts; Times New Roman 12 remains acceptable Times New Roman throughout Keep (verify headers/captions match) Line spacing Typically double-spaced body APA commonly double-spaced; tables/figures may differ Mostly double; some single-spaced blocks appear in RQs/hypotheses Normalize to double for narrative text; keep any single-spacing only where your program permits Paragraph indentation Dissertations often use first-line indent in body paragraphs (unless template specifies block style) APA commonly uses 0.5 first-line indent for paragraphs Body paragraphs are largely not first-line indented Apply consistent first-line indent (0.5″) to body paragraphs (except headings, tables, block quotes) Headings Marymount example shows structured chapter headings suitable for TOC APA heading levels must be applied consistently Most headings are plain Normal text; only a few are styled Heading 2 Convert all heading text to real Word heading styles (Heading 1/2/3), then auto-generate TOC Heading structure, navigation, and TOC readiness Findings Your document is not TOC-ready because most headings are not encoded as Word headings. This creates three defense risks: Committee members cannot reliably navigate the manuscript, and printed/PDF versions will not have a stable outline. You cannot auto-generate a Table of Contents aligned to headings/page numbers. Heading-level logic is currently inconsistent (e.g., chapter numbers and sub-section numbers skip sequencessuch as 1.3.4 appearing even though intermediate sections are absentcreating the appearance of missing content). Marymount dissertations commonly use chapter-level headings that roll up cleanly into a TOC. Required heading corrections You have two viable compliance paths; choose one and apply it consistently. Path A: Marymount dissertation chapter structure (recommended, based on Marymount examples). Heading 1: CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION, CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW, CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY, etc. Heading 2: Major sections inside each chapter (e.g., Research Problem, Research Questions, Hypotheses). Heading 3: Subsections (e.g., Stakeholder Theory, Institutional Theory, etc.). Path B: Numbered outline headings (acceptable if your committee expects numbering). Keep 1.1, 1.2… but apply Words multilevel list tied to Heading 1/2/3 styles so numbers update automatically. This prevents missing section number artifacts. Either way: once headings are properly styled, insert TOC and lists. Marymount examples show a TOC that enumerates subsections with page numbers. In-text citations and reference list integrity audit What APA requires APA Style is explicit that works cited in the text must correspond to entries in the reference list (reference lists, not bibliographies, and each work cited in the text must appear in the reference list). This requirement is frequently enforced by committees because it is easy to audit and is a proxy for scholarly rigor. High-confidence mismatches detected in your manuscript In your current manuscript text, the following citations appear in-text but do not appear as corresponding entries in your References section (as currently written in the file): (2024) is cited multiple times, but there is no matching B Lab reference entry. This is a major credibility issue because your introduction relies on B Corp prevalence statistics. Friedman (1970) is cited, but there is no Friedman reference entry. Ioannou & Serafeim (2019) is cited, but the reference list contains Eccles, Ioannou, & Serafeim (2014)not a 2019 Ioannou & Serafeim itemsuggesting a missing or incorrect source-year pairing. Reinhardt & Stavins (2010) is cited in the literature review discussion of environmental outcomes, but is missing from References. Serafeim (2020) is cited (re: financial measurement rationale), but no Serafeim (2020) entry exists. These specific issues should be corrected before defense because committee questions often target traceability of foundational claims. Critical content update opportunity: B Corp statistics should be refreshed Your manuscript currently uses earlier B Corp scale figures (e.g., 7,500…92 countries…). However, press releases and B Lab regional FAQs indicate the movement has surpassed 10,000 certified B Corps across 103 countries and roughly 160 industries by 20252026. Because your dissertation premise depends on certification growth and legitimacy, the defense version should align with the most current authoritative numbers and cite them properly. Tables, figures, appendices, and permissions audit APA requirements for tables/figures APA guidance indicates that the table number appears above the table in bold, and the table title appears below it (typically one double-spaced line below). Similar rules apply for figures: consistent numbering, clear titles, and notes/attributions when required. Findings in your manuscript Table captions are present but caption text shows corruption/typos in multiple places (missing letters/words). This reduces professionalism and can create confusion in oral defense when committee members refer to Table 1 / Table 2. Table 2 appears to be structurally incomplete (a blank/empty table object exists where content should be). This is high priority because the prose nearby implies you intended a full comparison table. Table 6 (mixed-methods strategy matrix) appears incomplete (the table object present is empty). Your methodology section references the matrix, so leaving it blank undermines evaluability and raises methods rigor concerns. Your diagram is labeled Diagram 1. In APA publishing conventions, this is typically handled as Figure 1 (diagrams are figures). For dissertation templates, consistent Figure labeling is generally safer and matches external expectations. Appendices are currently absent. If your study includes instruments (surveys, interview protocols), IRB materials, coding schema, or data dictionaries, most dissertation committees expect these in appendices, with TOC entries and consistent appendix labels (e.g., Appendix A, Appendix B). Marymount dissertations commonly include appendices in the compiled manuscript. (example includes appendices section) Permissions Your current diagram appears to be author-created SmartArt. If it is entirely generated by you (no third-party icons/images), permissions are typically not needed. If you copy any charts/figures from third parties later (e.g., B Lab score distributions, BrandZ charts), you will need figure notes and permissions or recreate the figure from underlying data. Alignment of research questions, hypotheses, and methodology with the triple bottom line Triple bottom line alignment Your study is structurally well-positioned to fit the triple bottom line (PeoplePlanetProfit), because your dependent variables already map to: Planet: carbon footprint, waste, energy use Profit: revenue growth, profitability/ROA/ROE, brand equity People: employee engagement, stakeholder trust/culture This aligns with scholarly definitions of the triple bottom line as integrating environmental, social, and economic performance (often described as people, planet, profit). Where alignment currently breaks down The strongest defense risk in your draft is internal design coherence, not the topic itself: The manuscript states an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design, but the methods text also describes the study as quantitative and cross-sectional, while simultaneously proposing five-year performance windows, moderation analysis, and post-certification comparisons. This needs clarification because cross-sectional and longitudinal/post-certification trend designs are not equivalent. Your hypotheses include brand equity measures (e.g., external indices) and engagement measures (e.g., Gallup Q12), but the methods section needs to state how these measures will be obtained (public sources vs proprietary datasets vs primary data collection) and how missingness will be handled. Your requested three-group comparison You wrote that your design will compare: B Corp certified firms, nonB Corp firms, and firms that are sustainable but not B Corp (i.e., sustainability-oriented comparators). This three-group design is analytically defensible, but only if you define group membership precisely. A defensible operationalization is: Group 1: Certified B Corps (verification via B Corp Directory / B Lab listings). Group 2: Sustainable but not B Corp (define using an objective criterion such as ISO 14001 certification, verified science-based targets, or consistent ESG disclosure/ratings threshold). Group 3: Conventional non-certified peers (industry- and size-matched firms without the sustainability credential threshold used for Group 2). This reduces selection bias and improves interpretability of effect estimates. Graphs you should include for a stronger defense narrative You explicitly asked for a graph or two. The strongest defense-aligned visual set is: Conceptual model figure (triple bottom line mapping + moderators) this functions as your theory-to-method bridge. Outcomes-by-group plot (even if using pilot/illustrative data in proposal stage; final version should use results): Planet: mean carbon intensity (e.g., tCO2e/$ revenue) by group Profit: revenue CAGR or ROA by group People: engagement/turnover proxy by group This is especially useful because B Corp debates center on whether outcomes are real vs signal. Also note: B Labs standards and certification processes have been evolving, with communications indicating updated standards and recertification expectations. In your dissertation, treat certification as a moving institutional regime and specify the certification cohort years you analyze. Required edits with Word track-change instructions, sample corrected text, checklist, and time estimate High-priority required edits Header/running head correction (Marymount-aligned): In Word: Insert Header Edit Header. Check Different First Page. (It is currently enabled.) First page header: delete the literal text Running Head: … entirely. (APA 7 no longer uses the Running head: label; Marymount example uses page number only.) All headers: remove the long all-caps title from the header; keep page number only, top right. This matches Marymount dissertation pagination practice. Update fields: Ctrl+A F9 to refresh page numbers and TOC fields after edits. Sample corrected header (what it should look like): Top right: 1 (page number field) No running head text. Title page replacement (Marymount dissertation-style template): Replace your current title-page block with a Marymount-formatted dissertation title page similar to the public Marymount dissertation example. Sample replacement text (edit placeholders to your DBA program): QUANTIFYING THE IMPACT OF B CORP CERTIFICATION ON SUSTAINABILITY, PROFITABILITY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES A dissertation presented to the Faculty of in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Business Administration (DBA) by Herrisha Maxine Morris Arlington, Virginia Month, Year of Oral Defense (Adapt this to the exact DBA wording required by your school/committee; Marymounts example demonstrates the structure.) Insert missing dissertation front matter (minimum defense-ready set): Title page (no visible page number) Approval/signature page (program-specific; shown in Marymount example) Abstract page (standalone) Table of Contents and (if required) List of Tables / List of Figures References (already present) Marymounts deposit workflow indicates dissertations are submitted for archiving and may be routed through ProQuest submission processes, so the manuscript needs institutional completeness. Heading and TOC rebuild instructions (track-change friendly) Turn on Track Changes: Review Track Changes. For each chapter title (e.g., your current 1.1 Introduction structure), decide whether you are using Chapter headings (recommended) or numbered headings. Apply styles: Chapter headings apply Heading 1 Major internal sections Heading 2 Subsections Heading 3 Insert TOC: References Table of Contents Automatic Table. If you must keep numbering, use Multilevel List tied to headings: Home Multilevel List Define New Multilevel List, link Level 1 to Heading 1, Level 2 to Heading 2, etc. Citation/reference repairs (with sample corrected entries) Fix missing reference entries for in-text citations. APA requires one-to-one correspondence between in-text citations and reference entries. Below are sample APA-style reference entries you can insert (verify titles/URLs and use the exact source you relied on): B Lab statistics (update to current): B Lab press releases show over 10,000 B Corps across 103 countries… Sample: B Lab. (2025, July 28). Over 1 million people now work at certified B Corps… [Press release]. B Corporation. (Use the exact page title and date you cite; if the webpage changes frequently, consider adding a retrieval date.) Friedman (1970): Add the canonical publication you used (commonly a journal or magazine essay). Ensure the text and reference match (author, year, title, source). Ioannou & Serafeim (2019) and Serafeim (2020): Either (a) correct the in-text year/author to match what you actually cited, or (b) add the full reference entry for the item you intended. Right now the reference list contains Eccles et al. (2014), which is a different work. Reinhardt & Stavins (2010): Add the full bibliographic entry (journal/book chapter) matching your in-text discussion. Then reverse-check: remove any References entries that do not appear in the final text (unless your program explicitly allows a bibliography). APA guidance distinguishes references from bibliographies and expects cited-work alignment. Tables and figures: exact rebuild instructions Table formatting: Put the table number in bold above the table, and the title below it. Table 2: Rebuild as a real Word table (Insert Table) with the columns you already drafted (Certification / Scope / Key Focus / Strengths / Limitations). Table 6: Rebuild the mixed-methods matrix table (Phase / Type / Data Sources / Collection Methods / Analysis Techniques). Do not leave it blank because your methods narrative references it. Figure labeling: Rename Diagram 1 to Figure 1; add a figure number + title in APA style, and add a figure note if needed. Defense-ready editing checklist Use this as the final pass checklist: Title page matches Marymount dissertation title-page structure Approval/signature page included if required Abstract page included; meets any ProQuest/manuscript expectations Page-number-only header (top right), no Running Head: label Headings use Word Styles (Heading 1/2/3) and generate TOC Paragraph formatting consistent (indentation, spacing, lists) All tables numbered/titled correctly; Table 2 and Table 6 populated Diagram converted to Figure 1 and referenced in text Every in-text citation has a References entry and vice versa B Corp statistics updated to current authoritative counts RQs hypotheses methods explicitly aligned to PeoplePlanetProfit Final update of fields (Ctrl+A F9), then export to PDF for a visual check Estimated time to implement edits The estimated total time to implement the above corrections is ~17 hours (typical range: 1222 hours, depending on how much front matter your program requires and how many citation mismatches remain once the full dissertation text is assembled). This estimate is consistent with the scope of structural changes required (front matter creation, heading/TOC rebuild, and citation reconciliation).

We are putting in a business proposal for ‘Strokes mechanic shop in GTA. Our projected customers will be commercial trucks and passenger vehicles. The MLO will be the current location at the shipping docks. Events will be host different events like 18 wheel drag racing, demolition derby and other fun ideas. owners will be Trov Walker and Clav Walker.