> **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](/sd/C04/Efficiency%20vs%20Effectiveness). --- ## 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](/sd/C04/Evaluation%20Criteria%20and%20the%20SRS). --- ## 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: ```mermaid 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** --- ## See also - [Designing an Evaluation Matrix](/sd/C04/Designing%20an%20Evaluation%20Matrix) — design your criteria and weights from first principles (the *why* behind the matrix) - [C4-1 Checkpoint — Your Design Pack](/sd/C04/C4-1%20Checkpoint%20-%20Design%20Pack) — the other half of C4 - [Efficiency vs Effectiveness](/sd/C04/Efficiency%20vs%20Effectiveness) · [Evaluation Criteria and the SRS](/sd/C04/Evaluation%20Criteria%20and%20the%20SRS) - [C4 Design Ideas and Evaluation Explained](/sd/C4%20Design%20Ideas%20and%20Evaluation%20Explained) — the walkthrough videos - [C04 → C05 — Choose, then Detail](/sd/C05/C04%20to%20C05%20-%20Choose%20then%20Detail) — where the chosen design goes next --- ← Back to [C04 Home](/sd/C04/C04-home) · [VCE Software Development Hub](/sd/VCE%20Software%20Development%20Hub)