This is a 10-minute Final Year Project proposal defense for a university committee that has not seen this project before. The audience is faculty evaluators judging whether the research direction is well-justified, technically sound, and worth approving — not a general audience and not investors. What it needs to accomplish: Convince the committee that (1) this is a genuine, well-documented research gap — Urdu has no benchmark or evaluated framework for omission-based misleading news, distinct from fake news/clickbait/sensationalism; (2) the research questions are concrete and each one maps to a specific, already-designed methodology step, not vague aspiration; (3) the project is a legitimate research contribution even though it adapts an existing methodology (OM-GUARD) rather than inventing a new one — the Urdu corpus and the empirical test of whether the method transfers to a right-to-left, SOV-structured language are the novel parts; and (4) the project is a research-first thesis (dataset + fine-tuned model), not a product build — the prototype is a lightweight validation tool, not the deliverable. What should happen after they see it: The committee approves the proposal to proceed, without requiring a change in direction — or, if they push back, their questions are answerable directly from what's already documented in the full proposal (methodology, evaluation plan, feasibility, cost) rather than exposing a gap the team hasn't thought throug