My professor keeps docking points for 'disjointed argumentation' in my policy analysis papers, but I am struggling to bridge the gap between my data and the brief's requirements?

It sounds like you are stuck in the trap of treating your policy analysis like a history timeline rather than a persuasive argument. When you list facts chronologically, you are essentially telling the reader what happened, but your professor is looking for the "so what?" factor. Think of your paper like a legal closing statement: you aren't just presenting evidence to a jury; you are connecting every single piece of data back to a specific recommendation or conclusion. If your data doesn't directly support the claim you are making in that paragraph, it’s just noise, no matter how accurate it is. Try grouping your points by the specific policy goals mentioned in your prompt rather than by time, and use each paragraph to argue for why a certain piece of data necessitates a specific action. I know how stressful it is to stare at a rubric and feel like you are speaking a different language than your professor, especially with a deadline looming. It’s totally normal to feel overwhelmed when you have all the research but can’t seem to weave it into a narrative. If you are worried about whether your interpretation of the prompt aligns with the department's expectations, please remember that any changes to how policy assignments are graded or structured are unverified until you confirm them directly. For the most accurate guidance on your specific requirements, you should reach out to your school’s financial aid or academic advising office, or check the official U.S. Department of Education resources if your questions involve broader policy impacts. Take a deep breath, prioritize your strongest argument, and you will definitely get this across the finish line.