| Course | BU 451 Programming for Business Analytics |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 8 |
| Paper type | Reproducible analysis submission |
| Length | About 1,010 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | BS in Business Analytics |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for BU 451 Unit 8
One Command, Eight Scripts, the Same Five Outputs on a Stranger's Laptop: A Reproducible Analysis Submission for an Invented Tennessee River Outfitter
Student Name
Business, Herzing University
BU 451: Programming for Business Analytics
Instructor Name
April 22, 2026
One Command, Eight Scripts, the Same Five Outputs on a Stranger's Laptop: A Reproducible Analysis Submission for an Invented Tennessee River Outfitter
What Is Being Submitted
This is the final submission for BU 451: a folder that analyzes the 2025 rental season of Riverbend Paddle Co., the Chattanooga kayak and paddleboard company created as a composite for this course, and that anyone can run. It brings together the setup, import, cleaning, functions, combination, analysis and validation work of the term. The submission has one entry point, a stated order of execution, relative paths throughout and an output folder built entirely by code. A short written account at the end says what the run produced.
Peng (2011) describes a spectrum from publication alone to full replication, with reproducibility, making the code and data available so others can repeat the analysis, as the practical standard in between. This submission aims at that standard: an instructor with Python installed can recreate every table and figure without asking the author anything.
The Folder and the Order of Execution
The folder is arranged as set up in the first unit. The scripts are numbered so that their order is visible in any file listing, and a single entry point runs them in that order.
| Order | File | Reads | Writes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | setup_env.py | requirements.txt | .venv, empty data/processed and output folders |
| 1 | run_all.py | Nothing directly | A run log; calls the scripts below in order |
| 2 | check_functions.py | functions.py | Nothing; stops if any known-answer check fails |
| 3 | 02_import_inspect.py | data/raw | output/02_inspection.csv |
| 4 | 03_clean.py | data/raw/rentals_2025.csv | data/processed/rentals_clean.csv, output/03_cleaning_log.csv |
| 5 | 05_combine.py | Cleaned rentals, weather, sites, fleet | data/processed/site_days.csv |
| 6 | 06_analyze.py | Processed files | Three tables, two figures and their captions in output |
| 7 | Validation guards | Called inside scripts 3 to 6 | Stop messages if any assumption fails |
The instructions in the README are two commands: run the setup script once, then run run_all.py. The entry point records the start time, the Python and package versions, each script's name and how long it took, and any guard messages, writing them to output/run_log.txt. Script 04, the functions module from the fourth unit, is imported rather than run, which is why the numbering has a gap; the README says so, since an unexplained gap is exactly the kind of detail that makes a reader wonder whether a file is missing.
Proving It Runs Elsewhere
Before submission, the folder was copied to a second computer that had never held the project, with only Python 3.12 installed. The setup script created the environment in about two minutes, and run_all.py completed in 41 seconds. The run log showed the same package versions as the author's machine, no guard messages and all known-answer checks passed.
The outputs were then compared file by file with the author's. The three tables were identical, byte for byte, which the script confirms by computing a short fingerprint of each file and printing it in the run log; matching fingerprints on both machines mean matching files. The two figures differed slightly at the pixel level because of font differences between the computers, but their underlying data, written beside each figure as a small table, matched exactly. Sandve et al. (2013) recommend keeping the data behind every figure for precisely this reason: images can vary with the machine while the numbers they show should not.
What Is Included and What Is Not
The four raw data files are included, since they are composite data created for the course and contain no personal information. If the data were a company's real records, the submission would instead include a small synthetic file with the same columns and the instructions for obtaining the real one, so the code could still be run. The virtual environment, the processed data and the output folder are not included; the setup and run commands recreate all three. No credentials, no personal paths and no files from any employer's systems appear anywhere. Wilson et al. (2017) recommend exactly this division: submit what cannot be regenerated and let the code regenerate the rest.
Where a Reviewer Should Start
A reviewer with ten minutes should read three things in order. The README explains the project and the two commands. The run log shows what happened on the last run: the versions used, each script's duration, the checks passed and the fingerprints of the output tables. And the cleaning log lists every change made to the raw data with the number of records each touched. Together these let a reviewer judge whether the outputs can be trusted before opening any code. A reviewer with more time can then read the numbered scripts in order, each of which begins with a short comment stating what it reads, what it writes and which earlier output it depends on. The functions module and the known-answer checks come last, since they matter only to someone who wants to change the analysis rather than repeat it. This reading order is stated at the end of the README, so no reviewer has to discover it.
What Changed From the Unit Drafts
Assembling the submission exposed two small problems in earlier work, both fixed before the final run. The analysis script had been reading the cleaned rentals through a path typed relative to the scripts folder rather than the project root, which worked when run from one place and failed from another; it now uses the root path like every other script. And the cleaning log had been overwritten, not replaced, so a stale line from a test run survived; the log is now deleted at the start of each run. Both would have passed on the author's machine and failed on the reviewer's.
What the Run Produced
The run cleaned 18,640 raw rentals to 18,619, removing 21 duplicates, and combined them into 642 site-days. Riverbend's three sites took $894,750 in 2025. CHA-1 was busiest with 8,210 rentals; CHA-3's longer rentals gave it similar fleet utilization, about 31 percent; and CHA-2 used only about 21 percent of its available craft hours, suggesting it carries more craft than its demand needs. Rentals rose with temperature into the low 90s and fell on the hottest and rainiest days, and online bookings made up 62 percent of rentals. These are descriptions of one season, not forecasts, and the written account says so. The most useful next step the owners could take is to rerun the same folder on the 2026 data when the season ends, which is what the whole structure was built to allow. Riverbend Paddle Co. and every figure in this submission are composites for this course.
References
Peng, R. D. (2011). Reproducible research in computational science. Science, 334(6060), 1226-1227. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1213847
Sandve, G. K., Nekrutenko, A., Taylor, J., & Hovig, E. (2013). Ten simple rules for reproducible computational research. PLOS Computational Biology, 9(10), Article e1003285. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003285
Wilson, G., Bryan, J., Cranston, K., Kitzes, J., Nederbragt, L., & Teal, T. K. (2017). Good enough practices in scientific computing. PLOS Computational Biology, 13(6), Article e1005510. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005510
What the BU 451 Unit 8 instructions ask for
The final BU 451 unit asks students to submit an analysis that someone else can reproduce. Typical requirements include an organized folder, a single entry point or clearly stated order of execution, relative paths, outputs generated entirely by code, instructions for setup, and a short written account of the results. Many instructors ask whether the data file should be included and how long the written portion should be. Students are often expected to demonstrate that the folder runs on another machine. Employer code or data should not be submitted. The deliverable is the folder plus a concise APA 7 document explaining its structure, how it was verified and what it found.
How this BU 451 Unit 8 example is built
The paper begins by describing the submission and the reproducibility standard it aims for. A table sets out the order of execution with what each file reads and writes, and a paragraph explains the entry point, its log and the gap in script numbers. A section describes the test on a second computer and the file fingerprints used to confirm identical outputs, noting why figures can differ slightly while their data match. A section lists what is included and what the code regenerates. Further sections give a reviewer's reading order and two bugs caught during assembly. The paper ends with a short account of the season's results and the next step.
BU 451 Unit 8 rubric: what full points look like
Reproducible submission rubrics generally reward a runnable folder, a clear order of execution, outputs generated by code, verification on another machine, appropriate inclusion of data and a concise written account, with presentation. The runnable criterion earns full credit when setup and run need only stated commands. Order of execution scores highest when enforced by an entry point and documented. Code-generated outputs reward the ability to delete and rebuild the output folder. Verification earns points for evidence from a second machine. Data inclusion is judged on sensible handling of what cannot be regenerated. The written account rewards a short, accurate summary that states the limits of the results. A reading order for reviewers, stated in the README, is a small addition that instructors notice.
Common BU 451 Unit 8 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Final submissions often lose points because the folder runs only in the order the author remembers, with no entry point or instructions. Another common problem is outputs committed to the folder that the code no longer regenerates exactly. Students frequently skip testing on another machine and discover path problems too late. Some include large generated files but omit the raw data the code needs. Others write long reports that restate every step instead of the results and limits. Many forget to record package versions in the run log. Finally, code stored in an employer's repository may belong to the employer; submitting course code written for the course avoids ownership questions.
Get a BU 451 Unit 8 example written to your instructions
Everything we need sits in your classroom: the Unit 8 instructions, the BU 451 rubric, any packaging or file-naming requirement, and the earlier work being assembled. The custom example arrives as one folder with a single entry point, separated stages, relative paths, a code-built output directory and a short account of the run. First one free, back in 24 to 48 hours.
More BU 451 papers and business analytics samples
- BU 451 Unit 1: Environment and setup exercise
- BU 451 Unit 2: Data import and inspection script
- BU 451 Unit 3: Cleaning and transformation in code
- BU 451 Unit 4: Control flow and functions
- BU 451 Unit 5: Aggregation and joins
- BU 451 Unit 6: Analysis script with output
- BU 451 Unit 7: Error handling and validation
- BU 351 Unit 8: End-to-end analytics case
- BU 407 Unit 8: Quantitative recommendation file
- BU 454 Unit 8: Visual report with rationale
- BU 455 Unit 8: Architecture recommendation
BU 451 Unit 8 questions, answered
How long should the written portion be?
Shorter than most drafts make it. The instructions usually fix a length, and where they do not, a few paragraphs naming what the run produces, what the outputs show and what the code assumes will cover the criterion. The temptation at the end of a term is to write an essay about the analysis, which pushes the artifact into an appendix and inverts the weighting.
Should the data file be included in the submission?
Include it where the instructions permit and the file is the one the course supplied, because a folder that cannot run without something a marker has to find elsewhere is not reproducible. Where the file is too large or the classroom says to reference it instead, say exactly which file the script expects and where it should sit, in the note at the top.
My code lives in a repository my employer owns. Is that a problem?
It is, on two counts. Handing over a link means handing over access to an account that is not yours to open, and the history in that repository will carry commits, names and internal references from work that has nothing to do with the course. Build the submission as a standalone folder from the unit's material and keep the company repository out of it.
Where can I find a free BU 451 Unit 8 sample paper?
The whole BU 451 Unit 8 reproducible analysis submission is free on this page, with the execution table, the verification record and margin notes. If your project differs, send your prompt and a custom submission write-up is prepared free, generally within 48 hours.
Should the data file be included in BU 451 Unit 8?
Include what the code cannot regenerate, usually the raw data, when it is shareable. The sample includes its composite raw files and explains that confidential data would be replaced by a small synthetic file with the same columns.