DRAFT — under teacher review.
Connect the Dots — Trace One Feature Through Every Layer
The Hamilton and Alexandra College · Year 12 · 2026
Your designs are not arbitrary choices. Every element you put on a screen should connect back to a real user need in your SRS, and every requirement should trace forward to a concrete implementation. This page shows you how to make that thinking visible — which is exactly what C5-3 Step 2 is testing.
The performance descriptor goes from "outlines connections" (annotations only) up to "documents connections across design ideas, requirements and detailed designs." That last level — full traceability — is the 9–10 evidence.
🎬 Watch
Video coming soon.
🎯 Watch for: how to follow a single design decision all the way from the mood board through to pseudocode, and why stopping at the mock-up is the most common reason students miss the top band.
Three Levels of Connection
Work through these in order. Each level adds a layer on top of the last.
Level 1 — Annotate Your Designs
Add a written reason to every significant element in your sketches and mock-ups.
A weak annotation describes: "The button is red."
A strong annotation justifies: "Red delete button — follows platform convention and creates a visual stop-sign effect, reducing accidental deletion for non-technical users."
The test for a good annotation: can you name the alternative you considered and why you rejected it? If yes, you are justifying. If no, you are only describing.
Examples from a typical SAT project:
- "Dropdown instead of text field → reduces input errors for non-technical users"
- "Red colour for delete button → follows convention, prevents accidental use"
Level 2 — Link to Your SRS Requirements
Map each design feature back to a requirement using the same numbering as your SRS (FR-1, NFR-3, etc.). This is what separates "I thought it looked good" from "this decision was required."
| Design Element | Requirement (SRS ref) | Justification |
|---|---|---|
| Search bar on home screen | FR-3: Users can search by name | Fastest path to core feature |
| Password strength indicator | NFR-2: Security | Guides users without explaining rules |
| Offline mode indicator | NFR-5: Reliability | Users need to know when data may be stale |
Build this table for your own project using your own SRS numbers. Every significant design decision should appear in it.
Level 3 — Trace Through to Detailed Designs
This is the level most students miss. Once you have a design element annotated and linked to the SRS, you need to show that the same decision flows forward into your detailed designs: the data dictionary, the IPO chart, and the pseudocode.
The diagram below shows what that chain looks like for one feature.
flowchart TD
A["🖼️ Mood board<br/>Search icon included<br/>in initial style references"]
B["📐 Mock-up<br/>Search bar placed top-centre<br/>on home screen (Step 1)"]
C["📋 SRS link<br/>FR-3: Users can search<br/>by name or category"]
D["🗄️ Data dictionary<br/>field: search_query<br/>type: String<br/>format: max 100 chars"]
E["📊 IPO chart<br/>Input: search_query<br/>Process: filter records<br/>Output: filtered list"]
F["💻 Pseudocode<br/>IF search_query is not empty THEN<br/> results ← filterBy(search_query)<br/>ENDIF"]
A --> B
B --> C
C --> D
D --> E
E --> F
If you can draw this chain for your most important feature, you have Level 3 evidence.
The Performance Ladder
| Level | What your evidence looks like |
|---|---|
| Basic | Designs exist but no written reasons |
| Developing | Some annotations, inconsistent |
| Proficient | Annotations on most elements — outlines connections |
| Strong | Annotations + SRS table — documents connections to requirements |
| Excellent | Annotations + SRS table + full trace to detailed designs — 9–10 band |
Stopping at the mock-up is the most common failure mode. A well-annotated, well-linked mock-up with no trace into the data dictionary or pseudocode caps you at the Strong level. Full traceability is what lifts the work into the top band.
Common Mistakes
- Connections implied, not documented — you know why you made the decision, but you never wrote it down. Markers can only assess what is on the page.
- No SRS reference — annotations explain the choice but never name the requirement it satisfies. The link between design and requirements is missing.
- Trace stops at the mock-up — the design looks connected, but there is no data dictionary entry, no IPO chart, no pseudocode that picks up the same feature.
- Wrong SRS numbering — you use different identifiers in the table than you used in your SRS. Use the exact same labels (FR-3, not "Functional Requirement 3").
Quick Checklist
- Annotations added to sketches and mock-ups explaining each significant design choice
- Each annotation names an alternative and gives a reason (justifies, not just describes)
- Each significant design element linked to at least one SRS requirement (FR- or NFR- number)
- Traceability table built: Design Element | Requirement (SRS ref) | Justification
- At least one feature traced all the way: mood board → mock-up → data dictionary → IPO chart → pseudocode
- Connections documented in writing, not just implied
Check Your Understanding
- A student writes "I used a dropdown menu because it looks cleaner." What is missing from this annotation?
...
Answer: The annotation describes a visual preference but does not name an alternative or link to a user need. A stronger version: "Dropdown instead of free-text field → limits input to valid options, reducing input errors for non-technical users (FR-3)." It needs the rejected alternative, the user-facing reason, and the SRS reference.
- Your mock-up has a search bar that is fully annotated and linked to FR-3. What additional evidence do you need to reach the top performance band?
...
Answer: You need to trace the feature forward into your detailed designs — a data dictionary entry for the search field, an IPO chart showing search as a process, and pseudocode that implements it. Stopping at the mock-up, even a well-annotated one, caps you below the 9–10 band.
- Why must the SRS references in your traceability table use the same numbering as your SRS document?
...
Answer: The marker needs to verify the link exists. If you write "FR-3" in your traceability table, they can turn to FR-3 in your SRS and confirm the connection. Inconsistent labelling breaks the chain and suggests you have not actually mapped the decisions — it looks like the connections are invented rather than documented.
See also
- Sketch vs Mock-up
- Data Dictionary — Format is not Type
- IPO Charts — Process Means Steps
- VCAA Pseudocode — Not Python
- Plan B Contingency Table
← Back to C05 Home · VCE Software Development Hub
