Chapter 45 — Independent design review

Lesson map

Lesson 45 published. Map, example, EX133.

flowchart TD
  N0["Learning outcomes"]
  N1["45.1 Arranging review"]
  N2["45.2 Findings and disagreement"]
  N3["45.3 Recording outcomes"]
  N4["Synthesis"]
  N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4
  N4 --> EX["Worked example"]
  EX --> Q["Exercise EX133"]

Logical drawing

flowchart LR
  N0["Learning outcomes"]
  N1["45.1 Arranging review"]
  N2["45.2 Findings and disagreement"]
  N3["45.3 Recording outcomes"]
  N4["Synthesis"]
  N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> Q["EX133"]

[Learning outcomes]
    |
    v
[45.1 Arranging review]
    |
    v
[45.2 Findings and disagreement]
    |
    v
[45.3 Recording outcomes]
    |
    v
[Synthesis]
    |
    v
[Worked example] --> [Exercise EX133]

Learning outcomes

You will (1) obtain independent review of the capstone design; (2) handle disagreement professionally; (3) record outcomes.

45.1 Arranging review

Jonas arranges an independent design review with an engineer from a partner organisation who has not seen the capstone. He sends the brief, requirements, models, threat analysis and code, and asks for a review against the EthTrust level M requirements and the cooperative's role policy. Independence matters because the author's familiarity hides assumptions. He schedules a meeting to discuss findings rather than receiving them only in writing. He also asks the reviewer to say what they found hardest to understand, since unclear parts often hide defects.

45.2 Findings and disagreement

The reviewer raises four findings. Jonas accepts three: a missing event for payout approval, an unclear error message and a test gap for maximum fund size. He disagrees with the fourth, a suggestion to allow any board member to approve small payouts alone, because the threat analysis ranked single-person approval as high risk. They discuss it with Dr Nwosu, who agrees with keeping multi-signature approval. Disagreement is handled by reasoning from requirements and evidence, not seniority. The discussion is recorded.

45.3 Recording outcomes

Jonas records each finding, his response, the decision and evidence in a review log. Accepted findings are fixed and retested; the rejected suggestion is recorded with its reasoning, so a future reviewer can see that it was considered. The reviewer confirms the fixes. A review log shows assessors that the design survived scrutiny and documents decisions for future maintainers who might otherwise repeat the debate. Jonas also writes a short reflection on what the review taught him about his own blind spots, noting that he had assumed events were obvious and therefore had not tested them, and plans to test events explicitly in future.

Worked example

An independent reviewer raises four findings; three are accepted and fixed, and one is rejected with documented reasoning tied to the threat analysis.

Synthetic case. Reviewers, findings and decisions are synthetic; EEA EthTrust is a real source.

Errors and limits

Rejecting review findings without recorded reasoning leaves future maintainers unsure why.

Exercises

• EX133 — Review basis. What does the reviewer review against?
  Show marking criteria

  Rubric: 3 = EthTrust level M and role policy;; 2 = EthTrust;; 1 = taste;; 0 = none.
• EX134 — Rejected suggestion. Which suggestion was rejected?
  Show marking criteria

  Rubric: 3 = single board member approving small payouts;; 2 = single approval;; 1 = events;; 0 = none.
• EX135 — Rejection basis. On what basis was it rejected?
  Show marking criteria

  Rubric: 3 = threat analysis ranked single approval high risk;; 2 = threat analysis;; 1 = seniority;; 0 = none.

Synthesis

Independent review, reasoned handling of disagreement and a review log strengthen a design.

Continue studying — chapter 45 of 50

← Chapter 44 (draft) · Course chapter index · Chapter 46 (draft) →