Updating Evaluation Criteria

Your C4 evaluation matrix was written before you built anything. Level 5–6 of C8-2 is showing the criteria evolved with the project — and 7–8 is explaining why.

The factors (VCAA)

Every criterion must belong to one factor.

Efficiency — how well the solution uses resources:

• Cost of data and file manipulation — resources required to handle data operations
• Functionality — features that align with user requirements, without unnecessary complexity
• Speed of processing — how quickly the software performs and responds

Effectiveness — how well the solution achieves its intended results: accessibility · accuracy · attractiveness · clarity · communication of message · completeness · maintainability · readability · relevance · timeliness · usability.

Three steps

1. Revisit your C4 criteria. List them, organised by factor, and compare what you planned against what you actually built: technical discoveries, creative solutions, scope adjustments.
2. Revise with what development taught you. Real examples of honest revisions:
   • Speed of processing: page loads within 4 seconds on the school network (revised from 2 — measured on real hardware)
   • Usability: login within 15 seconds on mobile (revised from 30 — users were faster than expected)
   • Accessibility: touch targets minimum 44 px for tablets (new criterion — user testing revealed it)
3. Keep the reason beside each change. A criterion that moved without a documented trigger (test result, user feedback, IT requirement) can't survive the viva's causal-reasoning gate.

Loosening a target isn't failure — an unmeasured target is. The mark of a real evaluation criterion is that it changed when the evidence said it should.

Four levels of evaluation matrix

The full worked matrices for all four levels are in your class repo: S-C08/C082-Evaluation-Matrices-Update.md.