1. Narrative Coherence -- “Does the Design Scenario effectively narrate a future vision, showing how the proposed System resolves the core issues identified in the Problem Scenario?”

Applies to: Design Scenario; Personas

• Design Scenario
  • Meets the criterion:
    • Describes day‑in‑the‑life interactions where the robot facilitates social contact, activity suggestions, and check‑ins for safety.
    • Shows role reallocation: robot handles routine social coordination while caregiver focuses on healthcare tasks.
  • (Potential) Improvements:
    • Add storyboard frames to make intent and timing explicit and include alternative flows (e.g., refusal, agitation, privacy concerns, no network).
    • Clarify contextual constraints (quiet hours, mobility limits) and explicitly reference the same actor names and terms across all artefacts.
• Personas
  • Meets the criterion:
    • Human and robot personas are specified according to the prescribed format.
  • (Potential) Improvements:
    • Expand to rich personas (background, routines, capabilities/limitations, values, relationships, digital literacy, risk sensitivities).
    • Make separate persona tables or pages for the key direct stakeholders with the concerning links to stakeholders.

2. Use Case Detail -- “Are the Use Cases detailed and formal, clearly describing the sequence of Interactions between Actors to achieve a specific Goal?”

Applies to: Use Cases with Claims

• Use Cases with Claims
  • Meets the criterion:
    • Provides multi‑step action sequences for social matching and for activity scheduling/reminding, including actor roles and example prompts.
    • Includes an additional group activity use case (e.g., music bingo) to illustrate multi‑party coordination.
  • (Potential) Improvements:
    • Complete a formal template for each use case: unique ID, scope, actors, triggers, preconditions, main/alternative flows, postconditions, exceptions, data used/produced.
    • Ensure consistent terminology (e.g., “interest gathering” vs. “preference polling”) and specify data provenance/consent for personal interests.

3. Core Logic Loop -- “Does each Use Case explicitly link a Function (the what) to an Effect (the result) through a well‑formed, testable Claim (the why)?”

Applies to: Use Cases with Claims

• Use Cases with Claims
  • Meets the criterion:
    • Claims enumerate functions such as interest gathering, social matching, and conversation facilitation, and state intended effects (confidence, engagement).
    • Some claims reference specific action‑sequence steps, strengthening causal traceability.
  • (Potential) Improvements:
    • Make all claims testable: define observable Effects with measurable indicators and negative side‑effects to watch for (e.g., over‑prompting, privacy discomfort).
    • Add prerequisites for each claim (e.g., accurate recognition, verified consent) and outline validation procedures to be used later.

4. Objective Alignment -- “Is there a clear mapping showing how the specified Use Cases and Functions serve a higher‑level Objective?”

Applies to: Use Cases with Claims; Objectives/Requirements

• Objectives & Requirements
  • Meets the criterion:
    • High‑level objectives (e.g., reduce loneliness, increase participation, relieve staff micro‑coordination) are reflected across the use cases.
• (Potential) Improvements:
  • The link between objectives and human factors concepts from the foundations could be more clearly articulated.

5. Pattern Application -- “Are recurring design problems addressed using clearly documented Design Patterns, with a clear distinction between Team Design Patterns (Task Level) and Interaction Design Patterns (Interaction Level)?”

Applies to: Team Design Pattern; Interaction Design Pattern

• Team Design Pattern (TDP)
  • Meets the criterion:
    • Proposes a hybrid oversight structure (staff validation and coactive decisions) for morally sensitive situations.
  • (Potential) Improvements:
    • Provide a solution structure with a picture.

• Interaction Design Pattern (IDP)
  • Meets the criterion:
    • Provides multiple IDPs (e.g., active listening, clarification prompting, timing management) tailored to dementia communication.
  • (Potential) Improvements:
    • Link references per IDP, and connect each IDP to the claims it supports.

6. Traceability to Foundation -- “Is there clear traceability showing how the specified Functions, Claims, and Requirements are derived from the analysis in the Foundation stage?”

Applies to: Use Cases with Claims; Requirements

• Traceability
  • Meets the criterion:
    • Conceptual links are implied between social needs, communication strategies, and chosen functions/claims.
  • (Potential) Improvements:
    • The link between objectives and human factors concepts from the foundations could be more clearly articulated.

Feedback on Revised Draft

1. Narrative Coherence: "Does the Design Scenario effectively narrate a future vision, showing how the proposed System resolves the core issues identified in the Problem Scenario?"

Applies to: Design Scenario

Design Scenario

Meets the criterion:

• Coherent day-in-the-life story with specific places/times and explicit alternate paths.
• Operational constraints included (quiet hours, location limitations); refusal and network-loss handling specified.

(Potential) Improvements:

• Add a compact storyboard with frames and guards to visualise transitions and triggers.
• Clarify what “Frames” refer to in the description
• Make preconditions/guards visible for autonomy boundaries (who/when Pepper may act in rooms vs. common areas).

2. Use Case Detail: "Are the Use Cases detailed and formal, clearly describing the sequence of Interactions between Actors to achieve a specific Goal?"

Applies to: Use Case with Claims

Use Case with Claims

Meets the criterion:

• UCs provide actors, triggers, pre/postconditions, main/alternative flows, exceptions.
• Data used/produced and consent handling listed for UC-01/UC-02.

(Potential) Improvements:

• No notes

3. Core Logic Loop: "Does each Use Case explicitly link a Function (the "what") to an Effect (the "result") through a well-formed, testable Claim (the "why")?"

Applies to: Use Case with Claims

Use Case with Claims

Meets the criterion:

• Claims link functions (monitoring, interest gathering, social matching, prompting) to intended effects with step-level references.
• Both positive effects and potential downsides are acknowledged in the narrative and patterns.

(Potential) Improvements:

• No notes.

4. Objective Alignment: "Is there a clear mapping showing how the specified Use Cases and Functions serve a higher-level Objective?"

Applies to: Use Case with Claims

Use Case with Claims

Meets the criterion:

• High-level objectives are visible and echoed in claims and flows.

(Potential) Improvements:

• No notes

5. Pattern Application: "Are recurring design problems addressed using clearly documented Team/Interaction Design Patterns with forces, solution, consequences, and links to UCs/Claims?"

Applies to: Team Design Pattern; Interaction Design Patterns

Team Design Pattern; Interaction Design Patterns

Meets the criterion:

• TDP outlines hybrid oversight for morally sensitive cases; IDPs include problem, principle, solution, and references.
• Patterns are linked to UC claims (e.g., interest gathering, prompting, timing).

(Potential) Improvements:

• Provide explicit link to the mentioned “TDP2: Supported Moral Decision-Making”,
  “TDP3: Coactive Moral Decision-Making.”

6. Traceability to Foundation: "Is there clear traceability from Foundation findings to Specification artefacts (Functions/Claims/Requirements) and forward to planned Measures?"

Applies to: Use Case with Claims

Use Case with Claims

Meets the criterion:

• Implicit linkages exist from scenario → UC steps → claims with some data provenance notes.

(Potential) Improvements:

• No notes.