1. Problem Definition: “Is the Problem clearly defined and illustrated with a compelling Problem Scenario that involves specific Stakeholders and their current Activities?”

Applies to: Operational Demands -- Problem Scenario, Operational Demands -- Situated Activities

• Operational Demands -- Problem Scenario
  • Meets the criterion:
    • Home‑care scenario with patient, primary caregiver, and adult child highlights memory loss, caregiver burden, and emotional strain.
  • (Potential) Improvements:  
    • Describe actions and consequences relevant to the problem in the existing scenario in more detail (e.g., in a narrative form before design intervention).
       
• Operational Demands -- Situated Activities
  • Meets the criterion:
    • Identifies functional areas (media presentation, conversation, reminders, games).
  • (Potential) Improvements:
    • Expand existing task workflows (who configures playlists, how reminders are acknowledged, escalation paths when non‑compliance persists).
    • Define artefacts (phones, pill boxes, calendars) and handoffs between caregiver and system.

2. Stakeholder Analysis: “Are Stakeholders well-defined using rich Personas? Does the documentation thoroughly analyze their needs, motivations, and core Values?”

Applies to: Operational Demands -- Stakeholders

• Operational Demands -- Stakeholders
  • Meets the criterion:
    • Lists patient, caregiver, and family members.
  • (Potential) Improvements:
    • Replace minimal tabular entries with rich personas (health status, routines, capabilities, value stories, digital literacy).
    • Include indirect stakeholders (clinicians, data‑protection roles) and articulate their values and constraints.
       

3. Depth of Contextual Analysis: “Does the documentation provide a deep and granular analysis of user Activities and Tasks, effectively explaining how they are shaped by the rich real‑world Context?”

Applies to: Operational Demands -- Situated Activities

• Operational Demands -- Situated Activities
  • Meets the criterion:
    • Functional intentions are specified for multiple domains (media, conversation, reminders, games).
  • (Potential) Improvements:
    • Describe relevant existing constraints and capabilities of actors present in the existing scenario in greater detail.

4. Human Factors Grounding: “Does the documentation ground the design in established scientific Knowledge by articulating relevant Human Factors concepts?”

Applies to: Human Factors -- Situated Cognition, Human Factors -- Evaluation Methods

• Human Factors -- Situated Cognition
  • Meets the criterion:
    • States the importance of meaningful activities, trust, and social connection, and mentions prior evidence at a high level.
  • (Potential) Improvements:
    • Specify concrete constructs (engagement, burden, affect) and link them to operational definitions suitable for home settings.

• Human Factors -- Evaluation Methods
  • Meets the criterion:
    • Mentions common HRI metrics (task performance, workload, acceptance) as a basis.
  • (Potential) Improvements:
    • Align measures directly to the stated HF premises and proposed activities (e.g., adherence logs for reminders, mood checks after conversations).
       

5. Technology Rationale: “Is the envisioned Technology described with a clear rationale for its selection, including an analysis of its potential benefits and drawbacks?”

Applies to: Technology -- AI and ICT, Technology -- Social Robot

• Technology -- AI and ICT
  • Meets the criterion:
    • Proposes LLM‑based conversation, personalised media curation, and game engines as enablers.
  • (Potential) Improvements:
    • Outline any alternatives that were considered and potential tradeoffs.
    • Justify/Motivate selection more extensively.
       
• Technology -- Social Robot
  • Meets the criterion:
    • Names Pepper as the current choice.
  • (Potential) Improvements:
    • Provide selection rationale tied to home constraints and tasks; compare alternatives; document limitations (cost, maintenance, mobility) and mitigation.

6. Component Integration: “How well are the Operational Demands, Human Factors, and Technology integrated to form a coherent and justified Foundation for the project?”

Applies to: Operational Demands, Human Factors, Technology

• Meets the criterion:
  • High‑level intent aligns: home routines and social contact relate to Human factor concepts (meaning, trust).
• (Potential) Improvements:
  • More explicitly link Operational Demands and Human Factor knowledge to the potential of the surveyed Technology

Feedback on Revised Draft

1. Problem Definition: "Is the Problem clearly defined and illustrated with a compelling Problem Scenario that involves specific Stakeholders and their current Activities?"

Applies to: Operational Demands – Problem Scenario, Situated Activities

Operational Demands – Problem Scenario

Meets the criterion:

• Home-care narrative highlights memory loss, caregiver burden, and emotional strain.

(Potential) Improvements:

• Add richer pre-technology action–consequence details in the problem narrative and measurable baselines.

2. Stakeholder Analysis: "Are Stakeholders well-defined using rich Personas? Does the documentation thoroughly analyze their needs, motivations, and core Values?"

Applies to: Operational Demands – Stakeholders

Operational Demands – Stakeholders

Meets the criterion:

• Patient, caregiver, and family members are listed.

(Potential) Improvements:

• Formalize indirect stakeholders into personas, too.

3. Depth of Contextual Analysis: "Does the documentation provide a deep and granular analysis of user Activities and Tasks, effectively explaining how the rich real-world Context shapes them?"

Applies to: Operational Demands – Situated Activities

Operational Demands – Situated Activities

Meets the criterion:

• Functional areas identified (media, conversation, reminders, games).

(Potential) Improvements:

• Describe relevant existing constraints and capabilities of actors present in the existing scenario in greater detail. Focus on the current state (i.e., before the robot is present). Some of the current content may be better suited to describing the Design Scenario (i.e., how the activities will be addressed once the robot is present).

4. Human Factors Grounding: "Does the documentation ground the design in established scientific Knowledge by articulating relevant Human Factors concepts?"

Applies to: Human Factors – Situated Cognition, Evaluation Methods

Human Factors – Situated Cognition

Meets the criterion:

• Importance of meaningful activities, trust, and social connection noted.

(Potential) Improvements:

• Specify constructs (engagement, burden, affect) with operational definitions suitable for home settings and candidate instruments.
• Reflect on the discussed evaluation methods (e.g., suitability, pros/cons)

5. Technology Rationale: "Is the envisioned Technology (e.g., AI and ICT, Social Robot) described with a clear rationale for its selection, including an analysis of its potential benefits and drawbacks?"

Applies to: Technology – AI and ICT, Social Robot

Technology – AI and ICT / Social Robot

Meets the criterion:

• LLM conversation, personalised media curation, and game engines proposed; Pepper identified.

(Potential) Improvements:

• Justify social robot selection with alternatives and benefits/trade-offs

6. Component Integration: "How well are the Operational Demands, Human Factors, and Technology integrated to form a coherent and justified Foundation for the project?"

Applies to: Operational Demands, Human Factors, Technology

Foundation – Component Integration

Meets the criterion:

• High-level alignment between home routines/social contact and HF concepts (meaning, trust).

(Potential) Improvements:

• More explicitly link Operational Demands and Human Factor knowledge to the potential of the surveyed Technology.