디자인 포트폴리오 구성·첨삭

# Industrial Design Evidence## Contents1. Evidence levels2. Claim rules3. Discipline-specific proof4. Authorship5. Common credibility failures## Evidence levels| Level | Meaning | Examples | Presentation rule ||---|---|---|---|| E0 | Unsupported idea | AI suggestion, memory, intuition | Label `Assumption` || E1 | Supplied but unverified material | User note, old slide, unattributed number | Cite source and caveat || E2 | Direct project evidence | Photo, sketch, CAD screenshot, test note, dated prototype | Present as project evidence || E3 | Independently verifiable result | Published spec, supplier quote, test report, launched product metric | Cite origin and date |Visual polish never raises an evidence level.## Claim rules- Research claims require participants, method, date/context, and limitations when available.- Ergonomic claims require target population, dimensions or test method, and use posture.- Performance claims require a benchmark, measurement method, and unit.- Cost claims require quantity, currency, date, included/excluded costs, and source.- Manufacturing claims require process assumptions, material, expected volume, and review status.- Patent or freedom-to-operate claims require a named database/search date and professional caveat.- Sustainability claims require a boundary, comparison basis, or declared estimate method.- Impact claims require a before/after definition and source.If these fields are unavailable, rewrite as design intent or a validation plan.## Discipline-specific proof### Research and strategyStrong: observation records, interview excerpts with consent, journey evidence, competitive teardown, prioritized requirements.Weak: generic personas, uncited market numbers, post-rationalized pain points.### Form and CMFStrong: sketch families, proportion studies, surface evolution, CMF samples, rationale tied to use and brand.Weak: one photorealistic render with no alternatives or material logic.### Ergonomics and interactionStrong: hand/body relationship, reach/clearance diagrams, physical rigs, error states, accessibility considerations.Weak: declaring a product ergonomic from appearance alone.### Engineering and architectureStrong: CAD screenshots, component architecture, interfaces, assembly sequence, service paths, engineer review notes.Weak: generated exploded art presented as a technical drawing.### Manufacturing and viabilityStrong: process choice, draft angles, wall thickness intent, parting strategy, fastening, tolerance risks, supplier feedback.Weak: unexplained process labels or precise costs without sources.### Prototyping and testingStrong: prototype purpose, variable tested, method, observation, design change.Weak: model photos without explaining what was learned.## AuthorshipEvery project must state:- personal role;- team and collaborators;- work personally produced;- inherited constraints or assets;- tools used, including generative AI where material.Use verbs that reflect actual responsibility: `led`, `co-designed`, `modeled`, `visualized`, `tested`, `supported`, or `documented`.## Common credibility failures- fabricated research participants or quotes;- AI images mixed with prototype photos without disclosure;- precise dimensions that do not match across views;- unattributed competitor imagery;- supplier or patent conclusions without a search trail;- team outcomes written as sole authorship;- final render shown before the reviewer understands the decision;- too many process diagrams and too little real process evidence.