DRAFT — under teacher review.

C4-2 Checkpoint — Your Evaluation Matrix

The Hamilton and Alexandra College · Year 12 · 2026

The C4-2 checkpoint is the draft evaluation matrix (and the criteria behind it) you build before the Finalise Evaluation Matrix validation. It's worth 40% of C4 and is due T2W7. This page tells you exactly what to produce and what separates a pass from a top band.

Important

Your draft only evidences the lower bands — the marks for apply, explain and justify are earned live. The validation (Finalise Evaluation Matrix, 30 min, 🔒 no internet, no AI) lets you consult your printed draft matrix, your C4-1 design pack and your SRS requirements — but you must fill, explain and justify on the spot. You can only do that if the criteria are genuinely yours.

What you submit

Build your criteria and a draft matrix before the validation, and commit each to GitHub:

#	Artefact	What it is	Where
1	Evaluation outline	Your chosen criteria — each one named, linked to an SRS requirement, and given a measure	☁️ GitHub
2	Draft evaluation matrix	A table: design elements as rows, criteria as columns, with weights and a first pass at scores	☁️ GitHub
—	Finalised matrix worksheet	Completed under test conditions on the validation day	🖨️ Portfolio

Your criteria must come from both sides of the evaluation: efficiency (VCAA names 3 measures) and effectiveness (11 measures). Get the distinction right — see Efficiency vs Effectiveness.

A good criterion = name + link + measure

A criterion only works if you could actually score it. Every one needs three parts:

Part	What it is	StudyStreak example
Name	what you're measuring	Logging speed
Link	the SRS requirement it traces to	→ FR3: log a session in ≤ 2 taps
Measure	a concrete, testable check	a new user logs a session in under 10 seconds, unassisted

The trap is the vague criterion you can't score. Give it a measurable makeover:

❌ "The app should be easy to use." → ✅ "A new user completes a study log in under 10 seconds, unassisted."
❌ "It should be accessible." → ✅ "Operable with keyboard only; passes a screen-reader read-through."

Tip

Every criterion must trace to a specific FR or NFR by ID/name — never generic "meets the requirements." See Evaluation Criteria and the SRS.

Building the matrix

Rows = your design elements/ideas · Columns = your criteria
Give each criterion a weight (how much it matters), then score each element against it
In every cell, write a one-line justification that cites the FR/NFR — that's what turns a score into evidence

A slice of the StudyStreak matrix:

Design element	Logging speed (FR3, ×3)	Calm/usability (NFR1, ×2)
One-tap "Log a session"	5 — 2 taps, meets FR3	4 — minimal, on-feeling
Full form with notes	2 — 6 taps, fails FR3	3 — more cluttered

What 100% looks like

Each verb builds on the one below — you score at the highest level where every step beneath it is clearly met:

flowchart BT
    L1["identify<br/>name measures to evaluate the ideas"] --> L3["outline<br/>criteria linked to FR & NFR"]
    L3 --> L5["develop & apply<br/>fill the matrix with evidence · bands 5–6"]
    L5 --> L7["explain<br/>which elements should proceed · bands 7–8"]
    L7 --> L9["justify<br/>why these proceed — name the rival · bands 9–10"]

The 9–10 move is "name the rival": don't just explain why your chosen element is good — say what you give up by not choosing the alternative, and why that trade-off is worth it.

Am I ready? — checkpoint self-check

☐ Evaluation outline committed — each criterion has a name, link and measure
☐ Criteria cover both efficiency and effectiveness
☐ Every criterion traces to a specific FR/NFR (by ID/name)
☐ No vague criteria — each one is measurable
☐ Draft matrix committed — design elements × criteria, with weights and a first pass at scores
☐ I can explain which element should proceed, citing 2+ criteria
☐ I can justify it by naming the rival and the trade-off I accept
☐ AI use logged in my AI disclosure log