Architecture decision review rubric

// Moderate the defence of a system design under failure, scale and governance constraints with distinct evidence-based descriptors; this illustrative rubric is not a validated instrument.
// Synthetic worked example: all entities, schedules and measurements are illustrative.
// Every string below is EXAMPLE text from a fictional model: replace it.
// Replace assumptions and inputs before applying this model to actual work.

rubric assessment {
  title: "Illustrative Architecture decision review rubric"
  course: "Advanced professional practice"
  assignment: "Defend a system design under failure, scale and governance constraints"
  author: "Flowss teaching example"
}

criterion criterion_0 {
  name: "Requirements"
  weight: .25
  description: "Design traces to user and system needs"
}

level level_0_0 {
  criterion: criterion_0
  label: "Emerging"
  points: 1
  descriptor: "Lists components without requirements"
}

level level_0_1 {
  criterion: criterion_0
  label: "Proficient"
  points: 2
  descriptor: "Links decisions to concrete requirements"
}

level level_0_2 {
  criterion: criterion_0
  label: "Advanced"
  points: 3
  descriptor: "Prioritises trade-offs under conflicting constraints"
}

criterion criterion_1 {
  name: "Failure handling"
  weight: .25
  description: "Recovery is explicit and testable"
}

level level_1_0 {
  criterion: criterion_1
  label: "Emerging"
  points: 1
  descriptor: "Assumes happy-path operation"
}

level level_1_1 {
  criterion: criterion_1
  label: "Proficient"
  points: 2
  descriptor: "Documents failure and recovery paths"
}

level level_1_2 {
  criterion: criterion_1
  label: "Advanced"
  points: 3
  descriptor: "Tests partial failure and recovery invariants"
}

criterion criterion_2 {
  name: "Data boundaries"
  weight: .25
  description: "Ownership and access are explicit"
}

level level_2_0 {
  criterion: criterion_2
  label: "Emerging"
  points: 1
  descriptor: "Omits data ownership"
}

level level_2_1 {
  criterion: criterion_2
  label: "Proficient"
  points: 2
  descriptor: "Defines contracts and authorisation boundaries"
}

level level_2_2 {
  criterion: criterion_2
  label: "Advanced"
  points: 3
  descriptor: "Explains versioning and cross-boundary failure"
}

criterion criterion_3 {
  name: "Evidence"
  weight: .25
  description: "Design claims have supporting evidence"
}

level level_3_0 {
  criterion: criterion_3
  label: "Emerging"
  points: 1
  descriptor: "Uses unsupported performance claims"
}

level level_3_1 {
  criterion: criterion_3
  label: "Proficient"
  points: 2
  descriptor: "States assumptions and test results"
}

level level_3_2 {
  criterion: criterion_3
  label: "Advanced"
  points: 3
  descriptor: "Separates observed behaviour from projections"
}

view criteria: rubric_grid