EPQ Artefact Projects: Ideas, Report and Marking

By Michael Thompson · Education Specialist; 10 years teaching the IB at Bromsgrove School · Published 24 October 2026 · Updated 25 October 2026

An EPQ artefact project lets you build, design, compose or create something - and then write a research-based report explaining every decision behind it. Unlike a dissertation, the artefact itself is the main outcome, but every board requires a written report alongside it, and the same four assessment objectives apply whether you make a short film or a structural model. The report, the Production Log or equivalent, and a live presentation are all compulsory - and on AQA the Production Log itself warns that 'failure to complete or submit a compulsory element may result in a mark of zero being awarded'. This guide covers what the report must contain, how marks are weighted on each board, where artefact projects lose marks, and around thirty project ideas to help you pick a direction.

Key Takeaways

• The written report is compulsory on every board: AQA and OCR set a minimum of 1,000 words for an artefact report; WJEC requires at least 1,500 words - and these are floors, not ceilings.
• AO3 'Develop and realise' carries the most marks: It accounts for 40% on AQA (20/50 marks), 44% on Pearson (24/54 marks), and 40% on OCR (24/60 marks) - so your development process must be documented in detail.
• Large artefacts do not need to be physically submitted: AQA states that photographs or other media suffice; OCR moderators confirm that portfolios should be curated rather than bulky.
• 1,000 words is a minimum, not a maximum: The AQA June 2023 examiner report found many students treated the 1,000-word floor as a cap, and describes the research in such short reports as 'often superficial'.
• The log must record your research journey, not just a timetable: Retrospective diaries and logs that show only planning without decision-making evidence do not support high AO3 marks, per the AQA examiner report.
• An impressive object without a development record will not score well: Research must visibly inform design choices; a report that reads as a diary of making rather than a reasoned argument loses marks at every band.

In This Article

1. What Is an EPQ Artefact Project?
2. Written Report Rules by Board
3. What the Report Must Do That the Artefact Cannot
4. How EPQ Artefact Projects Are Marked
5. Where Artefact Projects Lose Marks
6. EPQ Artefact Ideas by Field
7. Evidence and Logistics: Submitting Your EPQ Artefact
8. What to Do Next

1. What Is an EPQ Artefact Project?

An EPQ artefact is a made object or creative product submitted as the main outcome of an Extended Project Qualification. That product might be a piece of software, a short film, a musical composition, a built model, a design, or an organised event. Alongside it, you submit a research-based written report, a project log, and evidence of a live presentation. The counterintuitive part: all four of those components are assessed together, and a spectacular object with a thin report will not score well.

The same four assessment objectives apply whether you make something or write a dissertation. Every board frames them as: AO1 Manage, AO2 Use resources, AO3 Develop and realise, and AO4 Review. The marking grid is identical across routes. Choosing the artefact route does not give you an easier ride on any objective.

Board-level naming varies:

• AQA (7993) treats a performance, film, or composition as an artefact product. There is no separate performance route on AQA. See the AQA EPQ specification for the full evidence requirements.
• Pearson Edexcel separates the routes into four distinct units: P301 Dissertation, P302 Investigation/Field Study, P303 Performance, and P304 Artefact. The unit code matters when you read your grade boundaries.
• OCR (H857) lists an artefact as one of four permitted outcomes alongside a report, a dissertation, and a performance or event. See the OCR EPQ specification.
• WJEC similarly permits artefacts, designs, performances, and creative writing as project outcomes.

The practical takeaway: confirm with your centre which board you are registered on before settling on a topic, because the minimum word count for your written report differs by board and the log has a different name on each one.

2. Written Report Rules by Board

Every EPQ artefact project requires a written report alongside the made product, regardless of which board you are entered with. The word counts differ, but the principle is the same: the artefact alone cannot be assessed without a written account of the research and decision-making behind it.

Those figures are minimums, not targets. The AQA June 2023 examiner report found that many students treated the 1,000-word threshold as a ceiling, and that where such short reports did relate to the artefact 'the research component was often superficial'. The AQA specification v1.4 (7993) is plain on this: a product that consists solely of a research-based written report should be approximately 5,000 words. An artefact report sits at a different floor, but there is no upper limit.

A few board-specific points worth knowing:

• AQA allows students to include photographs of each stage of development as well as the final product as evidence. Large artefacts do not need to be submitted physically: photographs or other media are sufficient. (AQA 7993 specification v1.4)
• OCR requires the Project Progression Record (PPR) to be submitted for moderation. The PPR runs from initial planning through to the final evaluation and is separate from the written report itself.
• WJEC sets the highest floor of the three, at 1,500 words for artefact, design, performance, and creative writing projects. (WJEC EPQ Student Guide 2021)
• Pearson (P304) does not publish a single fixed word count in the main specification. Confirm the figure from your unit guidance and tutor-assessor before you start writing.

The practical takeaway: treat the minimum as a requirement to clear comfortably, not the point at which you can stop writing.

3. What the Report Must Do That the Artefact Cannot

A finished artefact can demonstrate skill. It cannot explain itself. The report's job is to supply the reasoning that the object cannot: the brief it was built against, the research that shaped it, and an honest verdict on whether it succeeded.

Start with a clear brief and success criteria. The AQA June 2023 examiner report noted that some students did not clarify what they meant by a key term in their title, which meant they had no firm criteria against which to judge their outcome. Vague titles produce vague evaluations, and vague evaluations cap your AO4 marks. Before you make anything, write down exactly what the finished product needs to do or achieve, in testable terms.

Show how research shaped design decisions. OCR moderators stated that research should "inform and support candidates' own thinking." That phrase has a specific meaning: your report should trace a visible line from a source you read to a choice you made. If the research section sits separately from the design section with no connection between them, moderators notice.

Record development stage by stage. The AQA specification explicitly allows "photographs of each stage of development as well as the final product" as evidence. Use that permission. A single photograph of the finished object tells an assessor very little about the process that produced it.

Test the outcome against the brief, not against your own satisfaction. The evaluation should return to the success criteria you set at the start and measure the product against them, including any criteria the artefact did not meet.

The practical takeaway: write the brief before you build, and treat each design decision as something that requires a written justification.

4. How EPQ Artefact Projects Are Marked

Every EPQ artefact project is assessed against four shared objectives: AO1 Manage, AO2 Use resources, AO3 Develop and realise, and AO4 Review. The weighting differs by board, but AO3 is the dominant objective on all of them. That means the finished object is not the main event. What examiners are rewarding is the documented journey from brief to outcome.

The table below compares mark allocations across all four boards.

WJEC splits each objective across two learning outcomes. AO3 is LO5 (20 marks) plus LO6 (20 marks), and AO4 covers LO7 for the presentation (10 marks) and LO8 for written evaluation (10 marks).

For Pearson, the June 2026 grade boundaries out of 54 - the same for all four units, P304 Artefact included - are: A* = 50, A = 44, B = 38, C = 33, D = 28, E = 23. That A* boundary at 50/54 leaves almost no room for a weak AO3. OCR uses four marking bands per objective, with AO3 spanning a 24-mark range divided into bands of six.

All four boards grade A* to E, and all four award up to 28 UCAS points at the top grade.

The practical implication: an impressive artefact with a thin development record will score poorly on AO3 regardless of how polished the final object looks. The marks follow the process, not the product.

5. Where Artefact Projects Lose Marks

The same mistakes appear across boards every year. Most are avoidable once you know what moderators are actually looking for.

Treating 1,000 words as a ceiling, not a floor. The AQA June 2023 examiner report is direct: "Many students seemed to think that 1000 words is a maximum number of words for their written report. It is in fact a minimum." A bare-minimum report rarely contains enough analysis to support high marks in AO2 or AO4.

Using the Production Log as an essay plan. AQA moderators saw centres where "students were encouraged to use the Production Log to plan an essay rather than to plan and manage a project." The log must track a making process, not a reading list.

Retrospective diaries. Writing up what you did after the fact is not the same as recording decisions as they happen. The AQA examiner report states plainly: "Retrospective diaries were not an adequate replacement for the Log entries."

Research that never reaches the design. OCR moderators flagged candidates whose background reading sat in isolation rather than informing their own thinking and shaping design choices. Reading widely is not sufficient; you must show how the research changed what you made.

Failing to define the key term in your title. The AQA examiner report identifies "not establishing the criteria by which they could judge their conclusions" as a significant issue. If your title asks whether a design "works," you must define what working means before you build anything.

An impressive object with no development record. AO3 (Develop and realise) accounts for 40% of AQA marks and 44% on Pearson. Marks here require documented process, not just a polished finished product. A beautiful artefact with a thin log cannot score highly under AO3, regardless of its quality.

Omitting compulsory elements. AQA's Production Log carries the note, quoted in the June 2023 examiner report, that "failure to complete or submit a compulsory element may result in a mark of zero being awarded." The three compulsory elements are the Production Log, the written report, and evidence of the live presentation.

6. EPQ Artefact Ideas by Field

The ideas below were written for this guide. They are not exam-board exemplars. Each entry names what is made and the research it would need, because the research-to-design connection is what your report has to demonstrate. On AQA, a performance, film or composition counts as an artefact product, so those appear here too.

One practical note worth flagging: the artefact brief you choose shapes how hard it is to write a strong report. A project with clear, testable success criteria (does the bridge hold 10 kg? does the app run under 2 seconds?) makes the evaluation section far easier to argue than a project whose outcome is purely aesthetic.

Product Design and Engineering

• Flat-pack furniture for a studio flat - design and build a wall-mounted fold-down desk. Research needed: ergonomics standards, timber load-bearing properties, joinery techniques, flat-pack assembly principles.
• Prosthetic hand prototype - 3D-print and assemble a low-cost adaptive hand. Research needed: anatomy of grip, existing assistive-technology designs, filament material properties, motor control basics.
• Noise-reducing bicycle helmet insert - design a foam insert tested against a decibel meter. Research needed: acoustic foam materials, cycling wind-noise studies, helmet safety standards.
• Solar-powered phone charger - build and test a portable unit. Research needed: photovoltaic cell efficiency, battery capacity calculations, user need in off-grid contexts.
• Reusable packaging prototype - design a mailer that replaces single-use plastic. Research needed: lifecycle analysis of materials, postal durability standards, consumer behaviour around returns.

Architecture

• Scale model of a community library - design and build a 1:50 model. Research needed: accessible design requirements (Equality Act 2010), natural lighting principles, public library usage patterns.
• Passive-house retrofit plan - produce technical drawings and a physical model for a Victorian terraced house. Research needed: insulation standards, thermal bridging, heritage building constraints.
• Pop-up homeless shelter module - design a deployable single-person unit. Research needed: material costs, structural load, existing modular shelter schemes in the UK.

Art and Textiles

• Textile collection responding to an industrial landscape - produce three garments or pieces. Research needed: the specific landscape's history, relevant textile movements (for example, the Bauhaus weaving workshop), sustainable dyeing methods.
• Screen-printed wallpaper series - design and print four repeat patterns. Research needed: William Morris's design philosophy, repeat-pattern geometry, non-toxic ink choices.
• Sculptural ceramics series on memory and place - five pieces. Research needed: psychological research on memory, ceramic artists working with site (for example, Edmund de Waal), hand-building vs wheel techniques.

Computing and Games

• Browser-based quiz tool for a subject you study - build and user-test it with classmates. Research needed: spaced-repetition learning theory, accessible web design (WCAG guidelines), JavaScript frameworks.
• 2D platform game with a historical setting - design and code in a game engine. Research needed: the historical period's visual culture, game-design theory on player motivation, level-design iteration.
• Data dashboard for local air-quality readings - scrape publicly available data and visualise it. Research needed: data ethics, air-quality monitoring methodology, data-visualisation best practice.
• Mobile app for tracking personal carbon footprint - prototype and test with five users. Research needed: carbon accounting methodology, UI/UX principles, existing app benchmarks.

Music and Film

• Original score for a short silent film - compose and record 10 to 15 minutes of music. Research needed: leitmotif technique, silent-film scoring history, recording and mixing basics.
• Documentary film on a local industry under threat - shoot and edit a 15-minute film. Research needed: oral history methodology, documentary ethics, interview technique, relevant industry data.
• EP of four original songs in a genre you are researching - record and produce. Research needed: the genre's history and harmonic conventions, home-recording signal chains, music industry self-release routes.
• Live performance of an original composition - perform and document it. Research needed: compositional form relevant to the piece, performance anxiety research, arrangement choices.

Food

• Recipe development: adapting a traditional regional dish for allergen-free diets - produce, test, and refine three versions. Research needed: allergen labelling law (Food Standards Agency), the dish's cultural context, food science behind ingredient substitution.
• Small-batch fermented product - develop a kombucha or kimchi recipe tested for consistency. Research needed: fermentation microbiology, food safety at home-production scale, flavour pairing.
• School canteen menu redesign - produce a costed, nutritionally analysed proposal. Research needed: UK school food standards, adolescent nutritional needs, food cost modelling.

Events

• Community science fair - plan and run a one-day public event. Research needed: public engagement with science methodology, event risk assessment, audience segmentation.
• Charity fundraising concert - organise and stage the event. Research needed: venue licensing basics, charity law for fundraising, event marketing on a zero budget.
• Debating competition for local secondary schools - design the format, recruit schools, run it. Research needed: competitive debate formats (British Parliamentary vs World Schools), safeguarding requirements, judging criteria design.

Education Resources

• Illustrated science explainer booklet for primary pupils - write and design a 12-page booklet. Research needed: cognitive load theory, science curriculum at Key Stage 2, plain-language writing principles.
• Video tutorial series (four episodes) teaching a practical skill - script, film and edit. Research needed: instructional design theory, accessibility (captions, audio description), platform choice.
• Board game teaching financial literacy to 14 to 16 year olds - design, prototype and playtest. Research needed: game mechanics literature, UK financial education curriculum gaps, user-testing methodology for games.
• Accessible maths worksheet pack for students with dyscalculia - produce 10 worksheets with teacher notes. Research needed: dyscalculia cognitive research, Universal Design for Learning framework, layout and typography for readability.

The non-obvious truth across all these fields: the research must visibly change what you made. A report that describes research and then describes the artefact separately, without showing how one altered the other, will struggle to score well on AO3, where 40% of the marks sit on AQA.

7. Evidence and Logistics: Submitting Your EPQ Artefact

The physical size of your EPQ artefact is not a barrier to submission. AQA's specification states that large artefacts do not need to be sent in: "photographs or other media will suffice." A built architectural model, a woven textile, or a welded sculpture can be documented through a staged photo sequence, one image per development milestone, alongside a shot of the finished piece.

Performances and films are treated the same way on AQA. The specification says evidence "can be provided in any form appropriate to the type of project chosen" and that "photographs or other media will suffice", so a dance piece or short film can be evidenced with recordings or excerpts rather than by submitting the full artefact. (The specification's mention of "short excerpts of video material" refers to media you may use in the presentation itself.)

Board-specific submission requirements differ in the details:

• AQA - submit the Production Log and Assessment Record (comprising the Project Proposal Form, Presentation Record, and Candidate Record Form), the written report, photographs of the artefact, and evidence of the live presentation.
• OCR - the Project Progression Record (PPR) must be submitted for moderation. The Summer 2024 moderators' report is explicit that portfolios should be curated: moderators "want to see a curated portfolio of evidence which demonstrates candidates' EPQ journeys and their development across the assessment objectives", and "bulky items can be evidenced through thorough photographing or videoing".
• WJEC - the final submission is the Candidate Assessment Record, which contains the Candidate Production Record, a Presentation Reviewer Statement, and presentation evidence.

One detail that catches candidates out on OCR: the same moderators' report lists candidates who "used hyperlinks or URLs instead of formatting references and citations" among those who did less well. OCR's moderators expect in-text citations and a formatted bibliography in the written report, and the AO2 wording every board shares rewards sources that are critically selected and used, which a bare list of web addresses cannot show.

8. What to Do Next

Your board's specification or student guide is the one document that resolves every ambiguity: exact word minimums, compulsory elements, log requirements, and what counts as evidence of the artefact. One counter-intuitive detail worth checking immediately is that AQA's 1,000-word minimum for the written report is a floor, not a ceiling, and that AQA's Production Log warns that failing to complete or submit any of the three compulsory elements (log, written report, and evidence of a live presentation) 'may result in a mark of zero being awarded'.

This week, find and read the specification for your board. AQA (7993), Pearson (the P304 Artefact unit), OCR (H857), and WJEC all publish them openly. Links to the official documents are in the references below. Download the correct version, note the compulsory elements, and confirm the minimum word count with your supervisor before you commit to a project format.

FAQ

What is an EPQ artefact?

An EPQ artefact is a made object or creative product - such as a design, piece of software, short film, musical composition, built model, or organised event - submitted as the main project outcome alongside a research-based written report, a project log, and a live presentation.

How many words does the EPQ artefact report need to be?

AQA and OCR both set a minimum of 1,000 words for the written report accompanying an artefact; WJEC requires at least 1,500 words of Project Outcome Notes - but on every board these are minimums, not targets, and the AQA June 2023 examiner report warned that many students wrongly treated 1,000 words as a maximum.

How is an EPQ artefact project marked?

All boards use four assessment objectives - AO1 Manage, AO2 Use resources, AO3 Develop and realise, AO4 Review - with AO3 carrying the highest weighting: 40% on AQA (20/50 marks), 44% on Pearson (24/54 marks), and 40% on OCR (24/60 marks).

How many UCAS points is an EPQ artefact worth?

An EPQ artefact is worth up to 28 UCAS points at grade A*, with the same tariff applying on AQA, Pearson, OCR, and WJEC: A* = 28, A = 24, B = 20, C = 16, D = 12, E = 8.

Do I need to physically submit a large artefact?

No - AQA states that 'photographs or other media will suffice' for large artefacts, and OCR moderators confirm that portfolios should be curated rather than bulky, so photographs and a written account of the development process are the key evidence.

What is the difference between the EPQ artefact report and the project log?

The written report argues why design decisions were made and tests the outcome against the original brief; the log (called the Production Log on AQA, the Project Progression Record on OCR, the activity log on Pearson, or the Candidate Production Record on WJEC) records the ongoing research journey, changes to the plan, and advice received - both are compulsory, and on AQA the Production Log warns that missing a compulsory element may result in a mark of zero.

References

• AQA Level 3 Extended Project Qualification (7993) Specification v1.4 - 2.5.1 Assessment evidence and project product - https://filestore.aqa.org.uk/subjects/AQA-W-7993-SP-19.PDF
• Pearson Edexcel grade boundaries June 2026 - Level 3 Extended Project (P301-P304, ZPJ30) - https://qualifications.pearson.com/content/dam/pdf/Support/Grade-boundaries/Project-qualifications/grade-boundaries-june-2026-project-l3.pdf
• Cambridge OCR Level 3 Extended Project Qualification H857 Specification v2.2 (October 2026) - Assessment, PPR, marking criteria bands, overlap with other qualifications - https://www.ocr.org.uk/Images/414382-specification.pdf
• WJEC Extended Project Qualification Student Guide 2021 - https://www.eduqas.co.uk/media/1tzjusk5/epq-student-guide-2021.pdf
• Cambridge OCR Extended Project H857 Moderators' report - Summer 2024 - https://www.ocr.org.uk/Images/727849-moderators-report.pdf
• Pearson Edexcel Level 3 Extended Project (ZPJ30) Specification Issue 4 - Assessment objectives, the presentation, assessment evidence - https://qualifications.pearson.com/content/dam/pdf/Project-Qualification/Level-3/2010/Specification/project-specification-level-3.pdf
• AQA Level 3 Extended Project Qualification 7993 - Report on the examination, June 2023 - https://www.aqa.org.uk/files/sample-papers-and-mark-schemes.2023.june.AQA-7993-WRE-JUN23_PDF/fa246dd5d7dc686c17d93e113bdfafcea9e00317.pdf