ASSIGNMENT 9 · CHAPTER 20
Make an integration decision across owners
Use the familiar decision-and-evidence sequence. This chapter focuses on governance → interfaces → staged acceptance. Make the initial decision before seeing the new evidence.
- Warm-up
- FIT → INTEGRATE → BOUND → ACT + EVIDENCE
- Commit Part A
- STRESS → REFIT
- AI declaration + human review
- Export and submit in LMS
1 · WARM-UP · 5 MINUTES · NOT GRADED
All participating systems pass their local tests. Does that establish a working system of systems?
Show / hide warm-up answer
No. Cross-system interfaces, independent changes and emergent behavior still need acceptance evidence at the level of the shared service.
No written warm-up response is required.
Lecture guide
X02A, X03, X04, X05, X06 and X08; original slides 15–41 and 48–60.
FIT identifies the relevant problem. INTEGRATE 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. |
| INTEGRATE · 1 point | 1: A feasible cross-owner agreement and staged acceptance test that handles incomplete participation and makes assumptions and authority explicit. 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 10. 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 university plans a shared incident dashboard using campus security, transport and facilities systems. Each system remains operational on its own and has a different owner and release schedule. Security supplies incident identifiers; transport supplies vehicle locations with timestamps; facilities supplies building-access status. The owners agree to a limited daytime pilot, but no agreement defines a common freshness limit or how to display an unavailable feed. Local API tests passed. No cross-system failure rehearsal has been performed.
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 20 unit/title or source page supporting your artifact and mechanism.
A1 · FIT · 1 POINT
Classify the SoS and identify managerial and operational independence. Name one shared service that creates value for the pilot.
A2 · INTEGRATE · 1 POINT
Propose an interface/governance record for two constituents and a staged acceptance test across them. Include ownership, version/freshness assumptions and useful behavior when one feed is absent.
A3 · BOUND · 1 POINT
Separate what the pilot owner can control from what requires agreement. State a trigger for suspending or narrowing the shared claim.
A4 · ACT + EVIDENCE · 1 POINT
Recommend pilot, restricted pilot or hold. Name the responsible coordination role, participating owners and evidence needed for the next stage.
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, INTEGRATE, BOUND, ACT and EVIDENCE before the new information appears.