Chapter 40 — Thesis and presentation
Lesson map
Lesson 40 published. Map, example, EX118.
flowchart TD
N0["Learning outcomes"]
N1["40.1 Writing the thesis"]
N2["40.2 Presenting to a mixed audience"]
N3["40.3 Responsible handover"]
N4["Synthesis"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4
N4 --> EX["Worked example"]
EX --> Q["Exercise EX118"]
Logical drawing
flowchart LR
N0["Learning outcomes"]
N1["40.1 Writing the thesis"]
N2["40.2 Presenting to a mixed audience"]
N3["40.3 Responsible handover"]
N4["Synthesis"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> Q["EX118"]
[Learning outcomes]
|
v
[40.1 Writing the thesis]
|
v
[40.2 Presenting to a mixed audience]
|
v
[40.3 Responsible handover]
|
v
[Synthesis]
|
v
[Worked example] --> [Exercise EX118]
Learning outcomes
You will (1) write a bachelor's thesis from project evidence; (2) present to a mixed audience; (3) hand over responsibly.
40.1 Writing the thesis
Sofia's thesis argues that a small community organisation can operate a voucher ledger safely if it combines simple contract rules, careful key management, independent reconciliation and volunteer-friendly operations. Chapters cover the cooperative, the system model, controls, research on mismatches, the comparison with a database and the monitoring capstone. Each claim cites evidence from her logs and tests or from verified sources such as NIST IR 8202, the OWASP Smart Contract Top 10 and EEA EthTrust. Dr Asante reviews each draft chapter and marks any claim that lacks clear evidence or a citation.
40.2 Presenting to a mixed audience
Sofia presents to assessors and to the cooperative's board. She uses one diagram of the system, three key results and one honest limitation, avoiding dense slides. Assessors ask why she kept the ledger when the database scored nearly as well; she explains the members' preference for shared records and the planned review. A board member asks what happens after she graduates; she points to the handover plan. Answering in plain language for both audiences shows real understanding. The assessors award a high grade, noting the quality of her evidence and her clear writing.
40.3 Responsible handover
Sofia hands over the monitor, documentation, test datasets and decision records to the cooperative's developer and two trained volunteers. She removes her own access, confirms the keyholder list is current, and schedules a check-in three months later. She writes a final note to members thanking them and explaining what the project changed. Reflecting on four years, she notes that the most valuable skills were clear reasoning, honest evidence and working respectfully with people. The degree ends with a working system, trained volunteers and her access properly removed.
Worked example
Sofia's thesis argues safe small-scale operation from evidence, her presentation answers the ledger-versus-database question, and she removes her own access at handover.
Synthetic case. The thesis, presentation and handover are synthetic; NIST IR 8202, OWASP SC Top 10 and EEA EthTrust are real sources.
Errors and limits
Leaving a graduate's access in place after handover creates an unmanaged privileged account.
Exercises
- EX118 — Thesis argument. What does the thesis argue? Rubric: 3 = a small organisation can run a voucher ledger safely with rules, keys, reconciliation and friendly operations;; 2 = combined controls;; 1 = blockchains are always safe;; 0 = none.
- EX119 — Assessor question. What did assessors ask about the ledger choice? Rubric: 3 = why keep it when the database scored nearly as well;; 2 = ledger versus database;; 1 = its colour;; 0 = none.
- EX120 — Handover step. Name one handover step. Rubric: 3 = remove her own access;; 2 = schedule a three-month check-in;; 1 = keep admin rights;; 0 = none.
Synthesis
An evidence-based thesis, clear presentation and responsible handover complete the degree.
Continue studying — chapter 40 of 40
← Chapter 39 (draft) · Course chapter index · Worked results ↓ · Next course via chapter index →