ASSIGNMENT 6 · CHAPTER 15
Choose a reuse strategy with evidence
Use the familiar decision-and-evidence sequence. This chapter focuses on options → constraints → justified choice. Make the initial decision before seeing the new evidence.
- Warm-up
- FIT → COMPARE → 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 purchased system costs less to acquire than a custom build. Is it necessarily the cheaper option over its useful life?
Show / hide warm-up answer
No. Integration, configuration, support, upgrades, migration and exit constraints affect the lifecycle comparison. Do not invent missing costs.
No written warm-up response is required.
Lecture guide
X02, D15, X03, X06 and R09; original slides 5–15 and 41–56.
FIT identifies the relevant problem. COMPARE 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. |
| COMPARE · 1 point | 1: A comparison using relevant planning factors, traceable facts and visible unknowns, leading to a defensible conditional choice. 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 7. 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 faculty needs a room-booking service for a three-year pilot. Option A is a configurable commercial product with the required booking functions and an export API; its support commitment ends after two years. Option B is an existing university application with an owned codebase, but it lacks recurring bookings and has no measured peak-load results. The team knows the university codebase. No reliable total-cost estimates have been supplied. The target is a pilot next term, not a complete enterprise replacement. Recommend an option, a restricted evaluation or a 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 15 unit/title or source page supporting your artifact and mechanism.
A1 · FIT · 1 POINT
Classify the two reuse approaches and identify the required functions and non-functional constraints.
A2 · COMPARE · 1 POINT
Compare the options against four relevant reuse-planning factors. Mark each entry supported, unknown or dependent on a condition. Do not invent scores, prices or performance.
A3 · BOUND · 1 POINT
Identify a lifecycle assumption that must hold and a specific change that would reverse the recommendation.
A4 · ACT + EVIDENCE · 1 POINT
Make a bounded selection or evaluation decision. Identify the owner and the evidence needed to settle one consequential unknown.
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, COMPARE, BOUND, ACT and EVIDENCE before the new information appears.