ASSIGNMENT 3 · CHAPTER 12
Trace the hazard to a control
Use the familiar decision-and-evidence sequence. This chapter focuses on hazard → requirement → verification. Make the initial decision before seeing the new evidence.
- Warm-up
- FIT → TRACE → BOUND → ACT + EVIDENCE
- Commit Part A
- STRESS → REFIT
- AI declaration + human review
- Export and submit in LMS
1 · WARM-UP · 5 MINUTES · NOT GRADED
A barrier controller follows every programmed command correctly. Does that establish that it cannot strike a pedestrian?
Show / hide warm-up answer
No. The requirements or sensing assumptions may be unsafe. Identify the hazardous situation, an appropriate control and the evidence needed to verify it.
No written warm-up response is required.
Lecture guide
X03, X05, X06, D12 and B01; original slides 15–32 and 44–58.
FIT identifies the relevant problem. TRACE builds this chapter’s artifact. BOUND states the limits. ACT + EVIDENCE records the action, owner and verification. STRESS then tests your reasoning before REFIT.
READ BEFORE ANSWERING
How your work is assessed · 5 points
| Criterion | Scoring |
|---|---|
| FIT · 1 point | 1: Defines the chapter-specific problem accurately, distinguishes facts from assumptions and connects it to the proposed action. 0.75: Sound reasoning with one minor omission. 0.5: Partly correct, with a consequential gap. 0: Missing, materially incorrect or based on invented evidence. |
| TRACE · 1 point | 1: A coherent hazard-to-requirement-to-control-to-verification trace, with existing and proposed evidence clearly separated. 0.75: Sound reasoning with one minor omission. 0.5: Partly correct, with a consequential gap. 0: Missing, materially incorrect or based on invented evidence. |
| BOUND · 1 point | 1: States relevant operating assumptions, scope and an observable trigger to reconsider the claim. 0.75: Sound reasoning with one minor omission. 0.5: Partly correct, with a consequential gap. 0: Missing, materially incorrect or based on invented evidence. |
| ACT + EVIDENCE · 1 point | 1: Gives a feasible bounded action, named responsibility and inspectable evidence, while distinguishing completed from proposed verification. 0.75: Sound reasoning with one minor omission. 0.5: Partly correct, with a consequential gap. 0: Missing, materially incorrect or based on invented evidence. |
| REFIT · 1 point | 1: Explains how the new evidence affects the initial claim and justifies RETAIN, REVISE or REPLACE with a coherent final record. 0.75: Sound reasoning with one minor omission. 0.5: Partly correct, with a consequential gap. 0: Missing, materially incorrect or based on invented evidence. |
Five points use the same familiar structure. The chapter artifact changes; the LMS determines how assignment points contribute to the course grade.
Learning-outcome alignment
This task supports supplied syllabus CLO 4. It practises disciplinary knowledge, engineering skills and accountable decisions. It is course-written practice, not an official national readiness assessment or an approved item-weight mapping.
Before you start
Use Save draft while working and Download draft / backup before leaving a shared device. Part A becomes read-only only after you confirm commitment. You can continue editing Part B afterward.
The new evidence opens automatically after you commit Part A. No unlock code is required. Your initial reasoning stays saved and read-only. The sequence is designed to preserve your first judgment; it is not a secure examination system.
Identity
Loaded from the entry page. Drafts are separated by Student ID in this browser.
Submission details
Check the current deadline and submission instructions in the LMS.
2 · PART A · 20 MINUTES
Assessed scenario · fictional teaching case
A fictional campus is evaluating an automatic loading-bay barrier. The proposed safety requirement is: the barrier must not close while the monitored zone is occupied. A prototype has passed the recorded daylight tests with an unobstructed camera. The test report does not include low light, rain or a covered lens. A separate stop button exists, but no drill report shows how quickly an operator can recognize a hazard and use it. Deployment is proposed for both day and night. You advise the service owner: release, restrict the pilot, or hold.
Aim for 300–450 focused words overall. Use a small table or clear notation for the chapter artifact. No code or external experiment is required. Cite at least one relevant Chapter 12 unit/title or source page supporting your artifact and mechanism.
A1 · FIT · 1 POINT
Identify one concrete hazard, the possible accident and who could be harmed. Distinguish these from an ordinary software failure.
A2 · TRACE · 1 POINT
Write one trace: hazard → safety requirement → design control → verification activity. Label each element already supported by the supplied evidence and each that is only proposed. Do not invent a numerical risk rating.
A3 · BOUND · 1 POINT
State the operating conditions supported by the evidence and a condition that would require a new safety decision.
A4 · ACT + EVIDENCE · 1 POINT
Choose release, restricted pilot or hold. Name one responsible role and the evidence that must support the chosen boundary.
Name the relevant test/log/audit, the conditions it must cover, who checks it, and what evidence is still missing. Do not describe requested evidence as if it already exists.
Commit is not LMS submission. Confirmation freezes FIT, TRACE, BOUND, ACT and EVIDENCE before the new information appears.