Released presentation assessment details.

Author: applebyter

assessment/presentation/criteria.tex

@@ -3,7 +3,8 @@
 
 \section*{Marking Criteria: Common Part~(20\%)}
 
-All team members obtain the same marks on Title Slide, Introduction and Context~(by \textbf{Presenter \#1}), ASRs~(by \textbf{Presenter \#2}), and Conclusion~(by \textbf{Presenter \#6}).
+All team members will be awarded the same result for the Title Slide, Introduction and Context
+(by \textbf{Presenter \#1}), ASRs (by \textbf{Presenter \#2}), and Conclusion (by \textbf{Presenter \#6}).
 
 \fontsize{9}{11}\selectfont
 
@@ -42,18 +43,19 @@ \section*{Marking Criteria: Common Part~(20\%)}
 \hline
 
 \textbf{~ ~Conclusion\newline 5\%} &
-The conclusion provides a clear, well-structured summary of all key architectural points and offers insightful reflection on lessons learned. &
-The conclusion clearly summarizes most key architectural points, and includes thoughtful reflection. &
-The conclusion summarizes main points clearly and includes some useful reflection. &
-The conclusion presents a reasonable summary, though some points may be underdeveloped. &
-The conclusion attempts to summarize key points but is vague or superficial. &
-The conclusion is unclear or disorganized, with poor summarization. &
-The conclusion is confusing or missing. \\
+Conclusion provides a clear, well-structured summary of all key architectural points and offers insightful reflection on lessons learnt. &
+Conclusion clearly summarises~most~key architectural points, and includes thoughtful reflection. &
+Conclusion summarises main points clearly and includes some useful reflection. &
+Conclusion presents a reasonable summary, though some points may be underdeveloped. &
+Conclusion attempts to summarise key points but is vague or superficial. &
+Conclusion is unclear or disorganised, with poor summarisation. &
+Conclusion is confusing or missing. \\
 \hline
 \end{xltabular}
 
 \clearpage
 
+
 \section*{Marking Criteria: Individual Part~(80\%)}
 
 \subsection*{Presentation \#1 Title Slide, Introduction and Context, Architecture}
@@ -86,11 +88,11 @@ \subsection*{Presentation \#1 Title Slide, Introduction and Context, Architectur
 \hline
 
 \textbf{Architecture Clarity and\newline Consistency\newline20\%} &
-Architectural structure is communicated with excellent clarity, logical flow, consistency and at an appropriate level of abstraction.  Relationships and responsibilities between components are well explained and coherent. &
+Architectural structure is communicated with excellent clarity, logical flow, consistency and at an appropriate level of abstraction.  Relationships and res- ponsibilities between components~are~well explained and coherent. &
 Structure is clearly presented and mostly consistent. Component responsibilities and relationships are explained well. &
 Architecture is mostly clear and consistent, though some relationships or responsibilities may be weakly described.	Description is understandable but may lack cohesion, with minor inconsistencies or unclear relationships. &
-Description is understandable but may lack cohesion, with minor inconsistencies or unclear relationships. &
-Architectural explanation is somewhat disorganized or inconsistent, weakening the overall coherence. &
+Description is understandable~but~may lack cohesion, with minor inconsistencies or unclear relationships. &
+Architectural explanation is somewhat disorganised or inconsistent, weakening the overall coherence. &
 Explanation is unclear or inconsistent, making it difficult to follow architectural relationships. &
 Explanation is highly inconsistent or incoherent, obscuring the system's architecture entirely. \\
 \hline
@@ -109,10 +111,10 @@ \subsection*{Presentation \#1 Title Slide, Introduction and Context, Architectur
 Presentation is well paced and delivered fluently. Information is logically sequenced, with clear objectives making it very easy to follow. &
 Presentation is well paced and delivered clearly. Information is logically sequenced, with some clear objectives making it easy to follow. &
 Presentation is mostly well paced and~de\-livered clearly. Information is logically sequenced, with signposting guiding audience through presentation. &
-Presentation pace is~a little inconsistent or delivery is occasionally unclear. Information is logically sequenced allowing audience to follow presentation fairly well. &
-Presentation pace is inconsistent or delivery is sometimes unclear. Information is not always logically sequenced, distracting audience from presentation flow. &
-Presentation pace is inconsistent or delivery is unclear. Information is not logically sequenced, and planned progression was not clear to audience. &
-Presentation pace is inconsistent and delivery is unclear. Information is poorly sequenced, confusing audience. \\
+Presentation pace~is a little inconsistent or delivery is occasionally unclear. Information is logically sequenced allowing audience to follow presentation fairly well. &
+Presentation pace~is inconsistent or delivery is sometimes unclear. Information is not always logically sequenced, distracting audience from presentation flow. &
+Presentation pace~is inconsistent or delivery is unclear. Infor- mation is not logically sequenced, and planned progression was not clear to audience. &
+Presentation pace~is inconsistent and~delivery is unclear. Infor- mation is poorly sequenced, confusing audience. \\
 \hline
 
 \end{xltabular}
@@ -172,11 +174,10 @@ \subsection*{Presentation \#2 Critique}
 Presentation is well paced and delivered fluently. Information is logically sequenced, with clear objectives making it very easy to follow. &
 Presentation is well paced and delivered clearly. Information is logically sequenced, with some clear objectives making it easy to follow. &
 Presentation is mostly well paced and~de\-livered clearly. Information is logically sequenced, with signposting guiding audience through presentation. &
-Presentation pace is~a little inconsistent or delivery is occasionally unclear. Information is logically sequenced allowing audience to follow presentation fairly well. &
-Presentation pace is inconsistent or delivery is sometimes unclear. Information is not always logically sequenced, distracting audience from presentation flow. &
-Presentation pace is inconsistent or delivery is unclear. Information is not logically sequenced, and planned progression was not clear to audience. &
-Presentation pace is inconsistent and delivery is unclear. Information is poorly sequenced, confusing audience. \\
-\hline
+Presentation pace~is a little inconsistent or delivery is occasionally unclear. Information is logically sequenced allowing audience to follow presentation fairly well. &
+Presentation pace~is inconsistent or delivery is sometimes unclear. Information is not always logically sequenced, distracting audience from presentation flow. &
+Presentation pace~is inconsistent or delivery is unclear. Infor- mation is not logically sequenced, and planned progression was not clear to audience. &
+Presentation pace~is inconsistent and~delivery is unclear. Infor- mation is poorly sequenced, confusing audience. \hline
 
 \end{xltabular}
 
@@ -202,9 +203,9 @@ \subsection*{Presentation \#3 Detailed Design}
 %
 
 \textbf{Selection of Design Focus\newline15\%} &
-Presentation is about an important and significant part of the system, showing excellent judgement. &
-Presentation is about a relevant and fairly significant part of the system that reflects key design complexity or importance. &
-Presenter selects a reasonable part of the system to present in detail.	&
+An important and significant part of the system was selected, showing excellent judgement. &
+A relevant and fairly significant part of the system was selected, which reflects key design complexity or importance. &
+A reasonable part of the system was selected to present in detail.	&
 Design focus is acceptable, but may not show the most relevant or complex aspect of the system. &
 Design focus is only partially appropriate.	&
 Focus is weak or only marginally relevant to understanding the detailed design.	&
@@ -235,11 +236,10 @@ \subsection*{Presentation \#3 Detailed Design}
 Presentation is well paced and delivered fluently. Information is logically sequenced, with clear objectives making it very easy to follow. &
 Presentation is well paced and delivered clearly. Information is logically sequenced, with some clear objectives making it easy to follow. &
 Presentation is mostly well paced and~de\-livered clearly. Information is logically sequenced, with signposting guiding audience through presentation. &
-Presentation pace is~a little inconsistent or delivery is occasionally unclear. Information is logically sequenced allowing audience to follow presentation fairly well. &
-Presentation pace is inconsistent or delivery is sometimes unclear. Information is not always logically sequenced, distracting audience from presentation flow. &
-Presentation pace is inconsistent or delivery is unclear. Information is not logically sequenced, and planned progression was not clear to audience. &
-Presentation pace is inconsistent and delivery is unclear. Information is poorly sequenced, confusing audience. \\
-\hline
+Presentation pace~is a little inconsistent or delivery is occasionally unclear. Information is logically sequenced allowing audience to follow presentation fairly well. &
+Presentation pace~is inconsistent or delivery is sometimes unclear. Information is not always logically sequenced, distracting audience from presentation flow. &
+Presentation pace~is inconsistent or delivery is unclear. Infor- mation is not logically sequenced, and planned progression was not clear to audience. &
+Presentation pace~is inconsistent and~delivery is unclear. Infor- mation is poorly sequenced, confusing audience. \hline
 
 \end{xltabular}
 
@@ -266,18 +266,18 @@ \subsection*{Presentations \#4 and \#5 Comparison}
 %
 
 \textbf{Alternative Selection\newline15\%} &
-Clearly identifies a relevant and credible alternative architecture, with strong justification for its suitability for the project.	&
-Identifies a relevant alternative architecture with solid justification, though it may not be as thoroughly justified in all aspects.&
-Identifies a plausible alternative architecture but may lack strong justification for its fit with the project.	&
-Identifies an alternative architecture but with minimal justification or clarity on why it's viable. &
+Clearly identifies a relevant and credible alternative architecture, with strong justification for its suitability for the project. &
+Identifies a relevant alternative architecture with a good, but not thorough, justification. &
+Identifies a plausible alternative architecture but justification of its suitability is a little weak.	&
+Identifies a plausible alternative architecture but with minimal justification or clarity of why it's viable. &
 Identifies an alternative, but the choice may be weak or poorly explained. &
 Identifies an alternative that is irrelevant or unclear. &
 Does not identify any meaningful alternative architecture or design philosophy. \\
 \hline
 
 \textbf{Comparison\newline30\%} &
 Provides a highly detailed and insightful comparison of the chosen architecture and alternative, covering key dimensions. Clearly explains which architecture is more suitable and why. &
-Provides a solid and clear comparison, covering key dimensions, with solid reasoning behind the preference for the chosen architecture.	&
+Provides an informative and clear comparison, covering key dimensions, with good reasoning behind the preference for the chosen architecture. &
 Provides a good comparison, touching on the main aspects, though the explanation may lack depth or full clarity in some areas. &
 Comparison addresses key aspects, but it lacks depth in areas such as complexity or the impact on ASRs.	&
 Comparison is basic and lacks clarity. &
@@ -288,7 +288,7 @@ \subsection*{Presentations \#4 and \#5 Comparison}
 \textbf{Trade-off Analysis\newline25\%} &
 Provides a thorough analysis of the trade-offs involved in choosing the alternative, detailing both its strengths and weaknesses, and how these trade-offs might impact the overall system.	&
 Provides a strong analysis of trade-offs, with a clear explanation of how the alternative would affect the system's quality attributes.	&
-Identifies major trade-offs but lacks a detailed explanation of how they would impact the project's quality attributes.	&
+Identifies major trade- offs but lacks a detailed explanation of how they would impact the project's quality attributes.	&
 Provides a basic analysis of trade-offs, but lacks depth in understanding their potential impact on the project. &
 Mentions trade-offs but provides limited insight into their impact on the overall system, or the trade-offs are unclear. &
 Provides minimal analysis of trade-offs, with little connection to system goals or project needs. &
@@ -299,11 +299,10 @@ \subsection*{Presentations \#4 and \#5 Comparison}
 Presentation is well paced and delivered fluently. Information is logically sequenced, with clear objectives making it very easy to follow. &
 Presentation is well paced and delivered clearly. Information is logically sequenced, with some clear objectives making it easy to follow. &
 Presentation is mostly well paced and~de\-livered clearly. Information is logically sequenced, with signposting guiding audience through presentation. &
-Presentation pace is~a little inconsistent or delivery is occasionally unclear. Information is logically sequenced allowing audience to follow presentation fairly well. &
-Presentation pace is inconsistent or delivery is sometimes unclear. Information is not always logically sequenced, distracting audience from presentation flow. &
-Presentation pace is inconsistent or delivery is unclear. Information is not logically sequenced, and planned progression was not clear to audience. &
-Presentation pace is inconsistent and delivery is unclear. Information is poorly sequenced, confusing audience. \\
-\hline
+Presentation pace~is a little inconsistent or delivery is occasionally unclear. Information is logically sequenced allowing audience to follow presentation fairly well. &
+Presentation pace~is inconsistent or delivery is sometimes unclear. Information is not always logically sequenced, distracting audience from presentation flow. &
+Presentation pace~is inconsistent or delivery is unclear. Infor- mation is not logically sequenced, and planned progression was not clear to audience. &
+Presentation pace~is inconsistent and~delivery is unclear. Infor- mation is poorly sequenced, confusing audience. \hline
 
 \end{xltabular}
 
@@ -334,7 +333,7 @@ \subsection*{Presentation \#6 Security}
 Identifies several security threats, though some may be less relevant or insufficiently detailed. &
 Identifies a few key security threats but misses some major ones or provides insufficient detail. &
 Identifies only a limited range of security threats, missing major threats that could impact the system. &
-Provides an incomplete or unclear identification of security threats, omitting critical issues.	&
+Provides an incomplete or unclear iden- tification of security threats, omitting cri- tical issues.	&
 Fails to identify or improperly identifies the security threats. \\
 \hline
 
@@ -354,19 +353,18 @@ \subsection*{Presentation \#6 Security}
 Acknowledges some remaining security challenges but does not offer concrete or comprehensive strategies for improvement. &
 Identifies some challenges but does not offer specific or actionable recommendations for future improvements. &
 Mentions remaining security issues, but provides no or very weak suggestions for improvement. &
-Fails to identify remaining security challenges or improvement opportunities. &
-Does not mention any remaining security challenges or improvements, or completely overlooks the topic. \\
+Superficial identification of remaining security challenges or improvement oppor- tunities. &
+Fails to identify remaining security chal- lenges or improvement opportunities, or completely overlooks the topic. \\
 \hline
 
 \textbf{Presentation\newline 10\%} &
 Presentation is well paced and delivered fluently. Information is logically sequenced, with clear objectives making it very easy to follow. &
 Presentation is well paced and delivered clearly. Information is logically sequenced, with some clear objectives making it easy to follow. &
 Presentation is mostly well paced and~de\-livered clearly. Information is logically sequenced, with signposting guiding audience through presentation. &
-Presentation pace is~a little inconsistent or delivery is occasionally unclear. Information is logically sequenced allowing audience to follow presentation fairly well. &
-Presentation pace is inconsistent or delivery is sometimes unclear. Information is not always logically sequenced, distracting audience from presentation flow. &
-Presentation pace is inconsistent or delivery is unclear. Information is not logically sequenced, and planned progression was not clear to audience. &
-Presentation pace is inconsistent and delivery is unclear. Information is poorly sequenced, confusing audience. \\
-\hline
+Presentation pace~is a little inconsistent or delivery is occasionally unclear. Information is logically sequenced allowing audience to follow presentation fairly well. &
+Presentation pace~is inconsistent or delivery is sometimes unclear. Information is not always logically sequenced, distracting audience from presentation flow. &
+Presentation pace~is inconsistent or delivery is unclear. Infor- mation is not logically sequenced, and planned progression was not clear to audience. &
+Presentation pace~is inconsistent and~delivery is unclear. Infor- mation is poorly sequenced, confusing audience. \hline
 
 \end{xltabular}