Knowledge
Explain an engineering concept from its source and distinguish it from a related concept.
SAUDI NATIONAL ALIGNMENT · CPIT-455 · 28 SEPTEMBER 2026
Jaheziah focuses attention on learning outcomes. The NELC framework guides the design of AI-supported learning. Here we show how both reference points translate into work that can be reviewed in every chapter.
COURSE SPECIFICATION · ETEC T-104
CPIT-455 Software Engineering (II), which corresponds to IT 456 Dependable Systems in the revised IT program plan, presented in the sections of the ETEC course specification template, with the iSCARB teaching and assessment framework mapped to each section. Open the course specification.
USE OF GENERATIVE AI · FCIT POLICY
The course follows the FCIT Generative AI Policy Guide for Course Syllabus of the Faculty of Computing and Information Technology and adopts its Option C, Mixed Approach. Each assessment has its own permitted level: the examinations and the in-class check are AI-Free; Part A of Assignments 6–9 is AI-Free; the Python build and the work after commitment are AI-Assisted, as stated on each assignment page; no assessment is AI-Integrated. Students declare any AI use, and use beyond the permitted level may be treated as academic misconduct. The AI level of every assessment.
In the week from 25 October 2026, each section gives ten minutes at the start of one lecture to the four themes set by the university: the Kingdom's standing and the blessing of security; unity, trust in the leadership and appreciation of those who protect the country; digital awareness and responsibility in publishing; and the student's role in awareness and reassurance. In this course the activity uses the course's own reasoning: a message is treated as a claim and checked with FIT, EVIDENCE, BOUND and ACT before it is shared, and a vulnerability is reported through the official channel rather than published. The activity and the lecturer's plan are on the activity page (in Arabic).
01 · Jaheziah
Chapter concepts build knowledge. Applying them develops skills. Decision boundaries and accountability demonstrate values. Each chapter specifies evidence and a review criterion while retaining its existing objectives and assignments.
Explain an engineering concept from its source and distinguish it from a related concept.
Apply the concept to the case and produce an inspectable calculation, test or contract.
Disclose assistance and limits, name the responsible owner, and revise judgment when evidence changes.
This proposed educational mapping supports readiness. It does not assign official Jaheziah specialization codes or exam weights; those require the approved program crosswalk. Practice questions are authored for this course, not taken from the Jaheziah examination.
02 · NELC · September 2026 framework
The five objectives and named readings come before the choice of AI assistance.
Evidence: chapter map + source review
AI supports critique of an alternative or examination of an assumption tied to the chapter concept.
Evidence: chapter-specific AI challenge; assistance is optional unless assigned
The learner produces the attempt and argument; the instructor verifies and retains judgment.
Evidence: independent attempt + explanation + human review
Use non-sensitive teaching inputs, disclose assistance and check claims independently.
Evidence: AI-use gate + source + claim boundaries
Review the quality of reasoning and revision, then adjust teaching when misconceptions appear.
Evidence: initial and revised decisions + rubric + feedback
| Stage | Application in iSCARB | Evidence location |
|---|---|---|
| 1 · Define | Five fixed objectives, the chapter learning need and the required evidence. | Chapter map and objectives |
| 2 · Design | One case, a mechanism explanation, three stations and source review. | Lecture and readings |
| 3 · Enhance | Critique, alternatives or simulation with a defined learning purpose. | AI lens and application challenge |
| 4 · Assign roles | The learner explains and decides; AI assists; the instructor designs and reviews. | Disclosure, decision owner and reviewer |
| 5 · Evaluate | Commit an initial argument before STRESS, then justify REFIT. | Mastery v2 + rubric + independent verification |
| 6 · Verify and improve | Review the error type and evidence before changing the activity or support. | Evaluation and improvement plan below |
These pages and activities are designed with reference to the framework. Their presence does not establish educational impact; the instructor checks independent performance and retains final judgment. This site does not call an AI service or provide AI grading.
Open “Jaheziah readiness” or “NELC alignment” from the lecture toolbar. Each opens a full reference slide for classroom use. “Return to lecture” restores your position. The twenty scientific slides keep their order, alongside the twenty iSCARB rules, objectives and assignments.
Restored vector diagrams preserve the relationships in the original source figures. Detailed explanations, required readings and source links remain available.
9 CHAPTERS · OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE
| Objective | What you should be able to do | Where you show it |
|---|---|---|
| Objective 10.1 | Distinguish the five properties using one example. | FIT + source application |
| Objective 10.2 | Trace one failure through people, process and technology. | FIT + transfer question |
| Objective 10.3 | Explain redundancy, diversity and common-cause failure. | BOUND + source application |
| Objective 10.4 | Identify evidence from a dependable process. | ACT + EVIDENCE |
| Objective 10.5 | Explain what formal verification assumes and what it cannot establish. | REFIT + EVIDENCE |
These are the current chapter learning objectives, not official Jaheziah codes. Performance is reviewed against the rubric; a page visit or one answer does not establish mastery.
| Objective | What you should be able to do | Where you show it |
|---|---|---|
| Objective 11.1 | Distinguish reliability from availability and explain how use and recovery affect them. | FIT + transfer question |
| Objective 11.2 | Select and calculate POFOD, ROCOF, MTTF and AVAIL; write a measurable requirement. | MEASURE |
| Objective 11.3 | Compare fault-tolerant architectures and justify a choice with its independence assumptions. | ACT + EVIDENCE + source application |
| Objective 11.4 | Apply the eight dependable programming guidelines to a failure scenario. | ACT + EVIDENCE (source application) |
| Objective 11.5 | Design a statistical reliability test using an operational profile and explain its limits. | BOUND + REFIT |
These are the current chapter learning objectives, not official Jaheziah codes. Performance is reviewed against the rubric; a page visit or one answer does not establish mastery.
| Objective | What you should be able to do | Where you show it |
|---|---|---|
| Objective 12.1 | Separate hazard, accident and risk. | FIT |
| Objective 12.2 | Explain avoidance, detection/removal and damage limitation. | TRACE + source application |
| Objective 12.3 | Read a fault tree and identify its assumptions. | transfer question + TRACE |
| Objective 12.4 | Link a safety requirement to a verification method. | TRACE + EVIDENCE |
| Objective 12.5 | Explain a safety case and the limits of formal/static analysis. | BOUND + REFIT |
These are the current chapter learning objectives, not official Jaheziah codes. Performance is reviewed against the rubric; a page visit or one answer does not establish mastery.
| Objective | What you should be able to do | Where you show it |
|---|---|---|
| Objective 13.1 | Distinguish assets, threats, attacks and vulnerabilities. | FIT |
| Objective 13.2 | Translate a policy into testable requirements. | TEST + source application |
| Objective 13.3 | Build a misuse case and a control. | TEST + transfer question |
| Objective 13.4 | Explain layered protection and secure defaults. | ACT + EVIDENCE |
| Objective 13.5 | Design a negative test and state its coverage limit. | BOUND + REFIT |
These are the current chapter learning objectives, not official Jaheziah codes. Performance is reviewed against the rubric; a page visit or one answer does not establish mastery.
| Objective | What you should be able to do | Where you show it |
|---|---|---|
| Objective 14.1 | Explain recognition, resistance, recovery and reinstatement. | FIT |
| Objective 14.2 | Identify organizational and technical dependencies. | RECOVER |
| Objective 14.3 | Interpret the Swiss Cheese model without assuming independence. | transfer question + BOUND |
| Objective 14.4 | Perform the stages of survivability analysis. | RECOVER + source application |
| Objective 14.5 | Trade off degraded service against confidentiality and integrity. | REFIT + EVIDENCE |
These are the current chapter learning objectives, not official Jaheziah codes. Performance is reviewed against the rubric; a page visit or one answer does not establish mastery.
| Objective | What you should be able to do | Where you show it |
|---|---|---|
| Objective 15.1 | Compare benefits and costs of reuse. | COMPARE |
| Objective 15.2 | Select an approach using planning factors. | FIT + BOUND |
| Objective 15.3 | Explain MVC and inversion of control. | transfer question + source application |
| Objective 15.4 | Distinguish product-line specialization and configuration. | COMPARE + ACT |
| Objective 15.5 | Compare COTS solution, COTS integration and ERP. | REFIT + EVIDENCE |
These are the current chapter learning objectives, not official Jaheziah codes. Performance is reviewed against the rubric; a page visit or one answer does not establish mastery.
| Objective | What you should be able to do | Where you show it |
|---|---|---|
| Objective 16.1 | Describe component characteristics and interfaces. | FIT |
| Objective 16.2 | Compare development for and with reuse. | source application + BOUND |
| Objective 16.3 | Choose sequential, hierarchical or additive composition. | CONTRACT |
| Objective 16.4 | Diagnose interface incompatibility and specify an adapter. | transfer question + lab record |
| Objective 16.5 | Read an OCL precondition/postcondition and design a test. | lab test cases + lab record + REFIT |
These are the current chapter learning objectives, not official Jaheziah codes. Performance is reviewed against the rubric; a page visit or one answer does not establish mastery.
| Objective | What you should be able to do | Where you show it |
|---|---|---|
| Objective 17.1 | Explain distributed-system design issues. | FIT |
| Objective 17.2 | Compare RPC and message-based interaction. | transfer question + interaction trace |
| Objective 17.3 | Distinguish layers and tiers. | source application + architecture |
| Objective 17.4 | Choose among the five source architectural patterns. | FAILURE + lab record |
| Objective 17.5 | Explain SaaS configuration, multi-tenancy and scaling. | transfer question + BOUND + REFIT |
These are the current chapter learning objectives, not official Jaheziah codes. Performance is reviewed against the rubric; a page visit or one answer does not establish mastery.
| Objective | What you should be able to do | Where you show it |
|---|---|---|
| Objective 20.1 | Recognize operational and managerial independence. | FIT |
| Objective 20.2 | Classify SoS and explain three kinds of complexity. | transfer question + BOUND |
| Objective 20.3 | Explain why reductionist assumptions can fail. | source application + FIT |
| Objective 20.4 | Plan interfaces, staged deployment and cross-system tests. | INTEGRATE + EVIDENCE |
| Objective 20.5 | Compare data-feed, container and trading architectures. | ACT + REFIT |
These are the current chapter learning objectives, not official Jaheziah codes. Performance is reviewed against the rubric; a page visit or one answer does not establish mastery.
| What to review | Evidence | Improvement decision |
|---|---|---|
| Independent understanding | An instructor-reviewed explanation or new case, with explicit conditions for AI use. | Revisit the misunderstood concept and check understanding again. |
| Value of assistance | The first attempt, the revision and the reason for accepting or rejecting it. | Adjust the hint or reduce support if it starts to replace the learner’s effort. |
| Quality of reasoning | FIT–BOUND–ACT–EVIDENCE followed by STRESS–REFIT, assessed using the rubric. | Adjust the case or feedback to address the observed weakness. |
| Workload and accessibility | Learner and instructor feedback, including reading and navigation difficulties. | Simplify presentation and support while preserving the learning outcome. |
Student drafts are saved locally and can be exported. Official submission, deadlines and grades remain in Blackboard. Experience feedback informs improvement but is not sufficient evidence of learning.
The logos identify the reference organizations. Alignment does not imply certification, endorsement or partnership with NELC or ETEC. Official codes, approval of the program crosswalk and verification of educational impact remain separate steps.
This page covers the nine published chapters. Code Coverage, listed in the syllabus, is practised in the coverage step of every build in Assignments 3–9; see the course-outcome map (outcome 11).