Answers and explanations · Build and defend the capstone

Module 8 Capstone outcome key

Run A uses P1/F1 on 14 October: A1 C201: DRAFT_READY, projector exactly 2 days. A2 C202: HUMAN_REVIEW, speaker 4 exceeds 3. A3 C203: NEEDS_INFO, duration absent. A4 C204: HUMAN_REVIEW, guest request. A5 C205: DRAFT_READY, webcam exactly 5 days. A6 C201 replay: DUPLICATE_SKIPPED, same request revision, no second queue item. A7 C206: HUMAN_REVIEW, instruction bypass/disclosure attempt, no other records disclosed. A8 C207: valid draft but unknown queue-write outcome; TECHNICAL_HOLD/NEEDS_RECONCILIATION until Q207 is found and checked; then RECORDED with one queue effect. The final business disposition is DRAFT_READY, review PENDING. A9 C208: INVALID_INPUT, 1.5 is not a whole number; do not round. A10 C209: HUMAN_REVIEW, damage request; no diagnosis, repair instruction or loan approval.

Run B uses P2/F2 on 2 November: B1 C301 webcam 5: HUMAN_REVIEW, exceeds the new 3-day maximum. B2 C302 webcam 3: DRAFT_READY, at the new boundary. B3 C303 projector 2: DRAFT_READY, unchanged limit. B4 C304 webcam 4 with contradictory approved current policies: HUMAN_REVIEW, conflicting_sources. Do not pick a numeric result. Restore the verified manifest and rerun an ordinary case such as C302 in an explicitly isolated test or new revision/context as appropriate; do not accidentally create another queue item by reusing a production operation key.

Rubric anchors

Scope 10: full marks for an exact job, clear inputs/output, owner and exclusions. Half for a useful scope with vague stops. Zero if it implies unauthorised booking or sending. Configuration 15: full for reusable instructions, all output fields, source/authority rules and clean-start tests. Half for a good prompt without reusable context or complete fields. Zero for absent or contradictory instructions. Knowledge 15: full for approved/effective source selection, references, supersession and conflict handling. Half if versions exist but applicability is unclear. Zero for using obsolete or draft sources as authority in final results. Data and routing 20: full for preserved identity, types, complete ordered decisions, fallback and labelled manual steps. Half for mostly correct cases with one unaddressed route or mapping gap. Zero for systematic misrouting or silent guessing. Review and recovery 15: full for exact-draft pending review, stale-approval reset, replay control, bounded retries and uncertain-outcome reconciliation. Half for a sound diagram but missing trace evidence. Zero for blind uncertain-write retries or bypassed review. Evidence 15: full for all cases, preserved failures, expected versus actual, source/configuration versions and honest labels. Half for partial cases with no false claims. Zero for invented live execution or copied expected answers represented as observations. Handoff 10: full for a usable owner/reviewer runbook with monitoring, cost, retention, limitations and justified next step. Half for a checklist missing an operational owner or pause rule. Zero for claiming production readiness without supporting evidence.

The threshold is 80 plus all mandatory gates. Design-and-rehearsal work can meet its own completion standard with honest evidence; it cannot receive a live-prototype description without actual live evidence. A gate failure requires repair and retest even if the arithmetic score is high.