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:
    • Coherent end‑to‑end narrative: Pepper supports Eddy with guided clarification, eligibility checks, recap prompts, and escalation while preserving autonomy.
  • (Potential) Improvements:
    • Add explicit environment constraints (SLA timing, open‑office noise) and adverse paths (policy conflict, irate customer) with human hand‑offs.
    • Include storyboard frames aligned to UC1.1–1.3 for fast comprehension.
• Personas
  • Meets the criterion:
    • Personas (Eddy, Agnes, Pepper) detail roles, needs, privacy expectations, and context‑aware behaviour consistent with the scenario.
  • (Potential) Improvements:
    • Ensure persona constraints (privacy boundaries, logging policies) appear as preconditions/guards in UCs and requirements.

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:
    • Use Cases provide clear objectives, actors, pre/post‑conditions, and granular numbered steps.
    • Claims attached per sub‑UC plus a shared claim on emotional perception of assistance.
  • (Potential) Improvements:
    • Add exception flows (missing receipt; outside warranty; system outage) and involvement of artefacts (e.g., ticketing tools).

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:
    • Functions are linked to effects (reduced omissions, clarity, confidence).
    • Shared claim acknowledges a potential negative effect (reduced perceived independence), showing balanced rationale.
  • (Potential) Improvements:
    • Link between Effects and Foundations could be articulated more strongly (i.e., how do they relate to elements like regulating stress or perhaps cognitive load that were mentioned there)
    • Link UCs to TDPs and IDPs.

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:
    • Objective is explicit: accurate, confident refund handling with maintained autonomy and customer clarity; UCs and claims align tightly.
  • (Potential) Improvements:
    • Link between Effects and Foundations could be articulated more strongly (i.e., how do they relate to elements like regulating stress or perhaps cognitive load that were mentioned there)

.

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:
    • TDP specifies roles, solution structure across sub‑UCs, human/machine requirements, consequences (positive/negative), and grounding.
  • (Potential) Improvements:
    • No notes.
• Interaction Design Pattern (IDP)
  • Meets the criterion:
    • IDP articulates roles, conversation flow, modalities, and adaptive repetition/takeover conditions.
  • (Potential) Improvements:
    • Add anti‑patterns (e.g., intrusive prompts in customer‑facing phases) and mitigations (silent visual hints); tie each IDP to UC steps/claims.

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

• Meets the criterion:
  • Specification echoes Foundation premises (situated support, stress reduction, autonomy).
• (Potential) Improvements:
  • Link between Effects and Foundations could be articulated more strongly (i.e., how do they relate to elements like regulating stress or perhaps cognitive load that were mentioned there).

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, Personas

Design Scenario, Personas

Meets the criterion:

• Detailed scenario with SLA timing, adverse paths (policy conflict, irate customer), and hand-off design.
• Grounded with literature link to cognitive prompting; autonomy-preserving framing.

(Potential) Improvements:

• Possibly add a visual storyboard with panels for each step.

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:

• Formalised flows with pre/postconditions, step-by-step actions, exception handling and artefacts.
• Clear division of roles and system support per step.

(Potential) Improvements:

• Remove leftover Music Bingo UC.

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:

• Claim balances positive (confidence, reduced stress) with negative risks (over-monitoring); mapped to steps and exceptions.

(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:

• Objective is explicit: accurate, confident refund handling with maintained autonomy and customer clarity; UCs and claims align tightly.

(Potential) Improvements:

• Link between Effects and Foundations could be articulated more strongly (i.e., how do they relate to elements like regulating stress or perhaps cognitive load that were mentioned there)
• Publish objective IDs and acceptance thresholds and link to claims; add explicit privacy/compliance requirements (data minimisation, retention).

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 Pattern

Team Design Pattern; Interaction Design Pattern

Meets the criterion:

• Comprehensive TDP and IDP with anti-patterns, mitigations, and traceability summary; links to UC steps and shared claim.
• Explicit “take-over consent protocol” and adaptive prompt loop designed to protect autonomy.

(Potential) Improvements:

• Remove “RQ03.0: Reflect on game performance” and “RQ03.2: Fill voids with fun facts“ leftover.
• Provide IDPs also in a typical pattern language format (e.g., Example Here).

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:

• Strong implicit traceability (scenario→UCs→patterns→claim) with exceptions and artefacts list.

(Potential) Improvements:

• Link between Effects and Foundations could be articulated more explicitly (e.g., when describing effects linking back to foundations).