All micro-internships
Micro-internship brief ≈6h in one sittingno-code

Settle a sports debate with actual data

Every sports argument — "who performs best under pressure?", "does home advantage matter?" — is a data question wearing a T-shirt. Pick a real debate, collect the stats from official records, and settle it with AI-assisted analysis you’ve verified by hand.

Data AnalysisSpreadsheet AnalysisData VisualisationAnalytical Reasoning

Posted by The AI Internships

The work brief

  1. 01Pick a genuine debate people around you actually argue about. Choose a sport with reliable free data.
  2. 02Define what would settle it BEFORE looking: which stat, over which period, with what cutoff.
  3. 03Collect the data from official league or competition records into a CSV — 30+ rows so it’s an analysis, not an anecdote.
  4. 04Ask AI to crunch the CSV, recompute the headline numbers yourself, then deliver the verdict with one chart — including what your data can’t settle.

What you’ll produce

4 deliverables

Submission standard

Submit the debate + your pre-registered settling criteria, the collected CSV, the verdict with numbers, and a chart. Include your AI workflow — tools, best prompts, and what you changed. Add a working link to the official record you pulled from, and make sure a grader can trace your headline numbers back to it.

  • The debate, both sides’ claims, and what stat you decided would settle it (before collecting)

    Written responseRequired

  • The collected data as CSV (30+ rows, with source noted in a column)

    30+ rows with a source column per row (or the section of the official page each block came from), so a grader can trace the numbers.

    CSV dataRequired

  • The verdict: the numbers, who’s right, and what the data can’t settle

    Written responseRequired

  • The chart you’d show your friends to end the argument

    Image uploadRequired

You’ll complete these inside your private workspace.

What you must submit as proof

This brief requires evidence an AI can’t fabricate.

  • Link to the official record/page your stats came from (e.g. league stats page, official competition records)

    Must open the real source so a grader can spot-check your CSV numbers against it.

    Public linkRequired

Submissions without this evidence cannot be submitted.

Protect other people in your proof. Blur faces, names, phone numbers and email addresses before you upload, and refer to anyone you worked with by role or number ("Listener 1", "the stall owner"). Your proof is only ever used to check your work — it is never published, never appears on your certificate, and is never shown in your public portfolio.

How your work is evaluated

The passing benchmark is 70/100.

Data quality

29%

30+ rows of real, sourced stats that actually bear on the debate.

Pre-registered rigor

29%

The settling criteria were set before collection and honoured in the verdict.

Argument-ending chart

14%

The chart makes the verdict obvious at a glance.

Verifiable official source

29%

The linked official source must exist and its numbers must match the CSV on spot-check. Unsourced or unverifiable stats, or numbers that do not match the source, are a fail regardless of how polished the verdict reads.

How we grade your AI usage

30% of your score

Using AI is the point — it’s the skill this certificate proves. You’ll answer three short questions about how you used it: what you asked, what was wrong with its first answer, and what you changed. Specific, honest answers score high. “I pasted the brief and submitted the answer” scores near zero.