<!-- Generated from applied-computing-au vic/unit3-4/sat/C08-2026/C08-Reference-Godot by port-reference-godot-to-wiki.py — do not hand-edit; re-run the port. -->
# 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

| Level | What it adds |
|---|---|
| 1 — Basic | every FR/NFR rated 0–2 in a checklist |
| 2 — Factor-based | criteria grouped under the efficiency/effectiveness factors above |
| 3 — Prioritised | factor weights (e.g. Accuracy 30%, Maintainability 5%) reflecting *your* project's priorities |
| 4 — Your own | mix, tweak or redesign — clear, systematic, meaningful |

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