Auto-commit 2026-09-07 15:42: 2 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)

Folien/AISE502_Vorlesung_14_Folien.tex

@@ -133,7 +133,7 @@
 \small
 \begin{enumerate}\setlength\itemsep{1pt}
     \item \textbf{Lesson 1 -- synthesis and exam hints} (\emph{no new material}): where we are; what did AI change; the script read backwards; \textbf{Maxim 8}; one discipline at two binding sites
-    \item \textbf{Exam orientation}: the written examination -- the facts; six learning objectives, five parts; open book: the map and the four tables; \textbf{Q\&A}
+    \item \textbf{Exam hints}: the written examination -- the facts; six learning objectives, five parts; open book: the map and the four tables; \textbf{Q\&A}
     \item \textbf{Lessons 2--4 -- final presentations, architecture defence, peer reviews} (deliverable \textbf{A3}, milestone \textbf{M6}): the format; what to present; defend your trade-offs; reflect on where AI helped and where it hurt -- in building (A) and in the system (B); assessment of the project
     \item Closing: the written examination as the last milestone
 \end{enumerate}
@@ -200,7 +200,7 @@
 \begin{center}
 \scriptsize
 \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.0}%
-\begin{tabular}{@{}p{1.35cm}p{8.5cm}p{3.2cm}@{}}
+\begin{tabular}{@{}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{1.35cm}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{8.5cm}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{3.2cm}@{}}
 \toprule
 \textbf{Part} & \textbf{What it established} & \textbf{Artefact} \\
 \midrule
@@ -295,7 +295,7 @@
 \end{block}
 
 \vspace{0.15cm}
-\footnotesize\textcolor{codegray}{Unchanged since Lecture 1 -- and unchanged today: no new material enters the examination after Lecture 13.}
+\footnotesize\textcolor{codegray}{Unchanged since Lecture 1 -- and Lecture 14 adds no new material; the reading for the examination is the whole script, Parts I--V.}
 \end{frame}
 
 \begin{frame}{Six learning objectives, five parts}
@@ -306,12 +306,12 @@
 \toprule
 \textbf{Learning objective (Lecture 1)} & \textbf{Where the script settles it} \\
 \midrule
-1. explain why architecture selection is a \textbf{matching problem} -- no pattern is good or bad in itself & Part I: A2 everything is a trade-off, A3 quality attributes drive structure; Part II: every rating explained through the tactics a pattern bundles or impedes \\
-2. construct a \textbf{requirements profile} $R(a)$: scenarios with response measures, utility tree, weights & Part I: A4 requirements decide only as measurable scenarios; Part III: ten classes as ASR bundles with response measures and hard constraints $K(a)$ \\
-3. derive the \textbf{capability profile} $C(p)$ of seven patterns from their tactics & Part II: capability profiles, every rating explained by tactics (the consolidated capability table) \\
-4. run the \textbf{three-stage, non-compensatory match} and defend the result & Part IV: knock-out screening, veto rule, holistic ordinal reading; hybrids are the normal case \\
-5. record decisions as \textbf{ADRs} and attach a \textbf{measurement contract} & Part IV: the procedure ends in an ADR, every ADR in a measurement contract -- A5, a decision is a hypothesis tested over the life cycle \\
-6. engineer \textbf{AI components} into a system (Axis B) and use \textbf{AI tools} in the process (Axis A) with the same discipline & Part V: A6 held -- one class, one dimension, five cell shifts, one composition pattern; Axis A raised the value of the artefacts \\
+1. explain why architecture selection is a \textbf{matching problem} -- no pattern is good or bad in itself & Part I: A2 everything is a trade-off, A3 quality attributes drive structure; Part II: every rating explained through the tactics a pattern bundles or impedes \\\addlinespace[3pt]
+2. construct a \textbf{requirements profile} $R(a)$: scenarios with response measures, utility tree, weights & Part I: A4 requirements decide only as measurable scenarios; Part III: ten classes as ASR bundles with response measures and hard constraints $K(a)$ \\\addlinespace[3pt]
+3. derive the \textbf{capability profile} $C(p)$ of seven patterns from their tactics & Part II: capability profiles, every rating explained by tactics (the consolidated capability table) \\\addlinespace[3pt]
+4. run the \textbf{three-stage, non-compensatory match} and defend the result & Part IV: knock-out screening, veto rule, holistic ordinal reading; hybrids are the normal case \\\addlinespace[3pt]
+5. record decisions as \textbf{ADRs} and attach a \textbf{measurement contract} & Part IV: the procedure ends in an ADR, every ADR in a measurement contract -- A5, a decision is a hypothesis tested over the life cycle \\\addlinespace[3pt]
+6. engineer \textbf{AI components} into a system (Axis B) and use \textbf{AI tools} in the process (Axis A) with the same discipline & Part V: A6 held -- one class, one dimension, five cell shifts, one composition pattern; Axis A raised the value of the artefacts \\\addlinespace[3pt]
 \bottomrule
 \end{tabular}
 \end{center}
@@ -359,13 +359,13 @@
 \end{column}
 \end{columns}
 
-\vspace{0.05cm}
+\vspace{0.15cm}
 Focus (Lecture 1): \textbf{architecture reasoning -- profiles, matching, trade-offs}; in the words of the Section 43 key concept: \emph{name, for any cell movement, the quality-attribute mechanism behind it}.
 \end{frame}
 
 \begin{frame}{Q\&A -- your questions, and one last discussion}
 \begin{thinkbox}
-\footnotesize \textbf{Your questions first} -- on the script, the four tables, the procedure, the examination. Then close the module with the symmetry of the previous section -- the artefact pairs across the two axes:
+\footnotesize \textbf{Your questions first} -- on the script, the four tables, the procedure, the examination. Then close the module with the symmetry of the previous section, and with the limits of the theory -- the artefact pairs across the two axes:
 
 \vspace{0.05cm}
 \begin{center}
@@ -391,9 +391,12 @@ the test suite as the agent's operating licence & the eval harness as the model'
 \end{frame}
 
 % ============================================
-% PRESENTATIONS, DEFENCE, PEER REVIEWS -- LESSONS 2-4
+% PRESENTATIONS, DEFENCE, PEER REVIEWS -- LESSONS 2--4
 % ============================================
 \section{Presentations, Defence, Peer Reviews -- Lessons 2--4}
+% UNRESOLVED (lecturer to fill): slot length per team (presentation / defence / peer review);
+% team order across lessons 2--4; peer-review form, criteria and reviewer assignment;
+% whether the M6 reflection is a separate slot or part of the presentation.
 
 \begin{frame}{The format: three lessons, one milestone}
 \footnotesize Week 14 in the semester plan: \textbf{1 lesson synthesis $+$ 3 lessons presentations, architecture defence, and peer reviews} -- deliverable \textbf{A3: final presentation}, milestone \textbf{M6}.
@@ -401,24 +404,26 @@ the test suite as the agent's operating licence & the eval harness as the model'
 \vspace{0.1cm}
 \begin{center}
 \footnotesize
-\begin{tabular}{@{}p{1.6cm}p{4.0cm}p{7.2cm}@{}}
+\begin{tabular}{@{}p{1.6cm}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{4.0cm}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{7.2cm}@{}}
 \toprule
 \textbf{Lesson} & \textbf{Block} & \textbf{Content} \\
 \midrule
 1 & Synthesis and exam hints & recap of the synthesis and exam orientation; Q\&A -- \emph{no new material} \\
-2--4 & Presentations, defence, peer reviews & each team: \textbf{present the system}, \textbf{defend the architectural trade-offs}, and \textbf{reflect} on where AI helped and where it hurt; the other teams \textbf{peer-review} \\
+2--4 & Presentations, defence, peer reviews & each team: \textbf{present the system}, \textbf{defend the architectural trade-offs}, and \textbf{reflect} on where AI helped and where it hurt; presentations and defences are \textbf{peer-reviewed} \\
 \bottomrule
 \end{tabular}
 \end{center}
 
-\vspace{0.1cm}
+\footnotesize\textcolor{codegray}{Slot length per team, presentation order, and the peer-review form: to be announced.}
+
+\vspace{0.05cm}
 \begin{projektbox}
-\footnotesize \textbf{M6 -- Presentation and Architecture Defence (Week 14).} Present the system and \textbf{defend your architectural trade-offs}. Reflect on where AI helped and where it hurt -- \textbf{in building (A) and in the system (B)}. The presentation with architecture defence is the last of the four project components that enter the project grade (A1, A2, implementation, presentation).
+\footnotesize \textbf{M6 -- Presentation and Architecture Defence (Week 14).} Present the system and \textbf{defend your architectural trade-offs}. Reflect on where AI helped and where it hurt -- \textbf{in building (A) and in the system (B)}.
 \end{projektbox}
 \end{frame}
 
-\begin{frame}{What to present: the system, along the mandatory part}
-\footnotesize The mandatory part of the exercise sheet is the natural outline of the presentation -- \emph{show the system that satisfies it}:
+\begin{frame}{What to present: the system the mandatory part requires}
+\footnotesize \textbf{Present the system} (M6) -- the one the mandatory part of the exercise sheet requires:
 
 \vspace{0.1cm}
 \begin{enumerate}\setlength\itemsep{2pt}
@@ -435,15 +440,14 @@ the test suite as the agent's operating licence & the eval harness as the model'
 \begin{itemize}\setlength\itemsep{1pt}
     \item Use a \textbf{snapshot} of market/news data so your demo and grading are reproducible even if the live APIs misbehave
     \item Keep the deterministic core \textbf{free of LLM calls} -- \emph{this is the line that is graded}
-    \item Distinction work (autonomous planning, self-repair loops, model routing, CI/CD, tracing) is presented \emph{as} distinction work: every topology escalation justified against the task-signature table and priced per the default rule (Lecture 13)
+    \item Distinction work (autonomous planning, self-repair loops, model routing, CI/CD, tracing): every topology escalation justified against the task-signature table and priced per the default rule (Lecture 13)
 \end{itemize}
 \end{hinweisbox}
 \end{frame}
 
 \begin{frame}{The architecture defence: defend your trade-offs}
-\footnotesize The defence runs on the artefacts you already delivered in \textbf{A2} -- the \textbf{ADR}, the \textbf{C4 diagram}, and the \textbf{measurement contract} -- read against the five emphases of the project assessment:
+\footnotesize The trade-offs you defend are the ones recorded in \textbf{A2} -- the \textbf{ADR}, the \textbf{C4 diagram}, the \textbf{measurement contract}. The project assessment emphasises:
 
-\vspace{0.1cm}
 \begin{center}
 \footnotesize
 \begin{tabular}{@{}p{3.4cm}p{9.3cm}@{}}
@@ -459,9 +463,8 @@ the test suite as the agent's operating licence & the eval harness as the model'
 \end{tabular}
 \end{center}
 
-\vspace{0.1cm}
 \begin{keypoint}
-\footnotesize A \emph{defence} in the sense of learning objective 4: \textbf{run the three-stage, non-compensatory match and defend the result} -- knock-out, veto, ordinal reading; the decision as an ADR; the ADR as a hypothesis with a measurement contract (A5). \emph{An architectural decision without a measurement is an opinion} -- the defence is where the measurements are shown.
+\footnotesize A \emph{defence} in the sense of learning objective 4: \textbf{run the three-stage, non-compensatory match and defend the result}; the decision as an \textbf{ADR}; every ADR ends in a \textbf{measurement contract} -- a decision is a hypothesis tested over the life cycle (A5).
 \end{keypoint}
 \end{frame}
 
@@ -474,16 +477,16 @@ the test suite as the agent's operating licence & the eval harness as the model'
 \textcolor{bankblue}{\textbf{Axis A -- AI in building the system}}
 \footnotesize
 \begin{itemize}\setlength\itemsep{1pt}
-    \item where agentic tools helped -- and where the \textbf{verification bottleneck} bit (Maxim 7: generation is cheap, verification and architecture are binding)
-    \item which of your artefacts served as agent context: documentation as \textbf{control interface}, fitness functions as \textbf{operating licence}, who merged the answers
+    \item where agentic tools helped -- and where the \textbf{verification bottleneck} bit (Axis A: \emph{generation} is cheap, \emph{verification} is the bottleneck)
+    \item which of your artefacts served as agent context: \textbf{documentation as agent context}, \textbf{fitness functions as operating licence}
 \end{itemize}
 \end{column}
 \begin{column}{0.48\textwidth}
 \textcolor{bankblue}{\textbf{Axis B -- AI in the system}}
 \footnotesize
 \begin{itemize}\setlength\itemsep{1pt}
-    \item where the LLM component helped -- and where its \textbf{non-determinism, fallibility, latency, and per-call cost} hurt
-    \item what contained it: the \textbf{gateway}, the \textbf{ontology guard}, the \textbf{eval harness}, the \textbf{determinism boundary} -- \emph{agents propose; deterministic services decide and book}
+    \item where the LLM component helped -- and where the \textbf{validation bottleneck} bit (Axis B: \emph{model output} is cheap, \emph{validation} is the bottleneck)
+    \item what contained it: \textbf{contracts}, \textbf{ontology guards}, \textbf{eval harnesses}, and a \textbf{human-owned determinism boundary}
 \end{itemize}
 \end{column}
 \end{columns}
@@ -494,17 +497,17 @@ the test suite as the agent's operating licence & the eval harness as the model'
 \end{keypoint}
 \end{frame}
 
-\begin{frame}{Peer reviews: the other teams are the second audience}
+\begin{frame}{Peer reviews: the third element of lessons 2--4}
 \footnotesize
 \begin{itemize}\setlength\itemsep{3pt}
-    \item Every presentation and defence is \textbf{peer-reviewed} by the other teams -- the semester plan's third element of lessons 2--4
-    \item You review as \emph{architects}, in the vocabulary of this module: the same \textbf{five emphases} as the assessment (architecture \& trade-offs, robustness, quality, AI integration, operation), and the same question the defence answers -- \emph{does the decision rest on a match, an ADR, and a measurement?}
-    \item Every team has solved the \textbf{same class} (C10) with the \textbf{same procedure} -- differences between the systems are differences of \emph{decision}, which is exactly what a review can compare
+    \item Presentations and defences are \textbf{peer-reviewed} -- the semester plan's week 14: \emph{presentations $+$ architecture defence $+$ peer reviews}, the third element of lessons 2--4
+    \item \textbf{Peer-review form, criteria, and reviewer assignment: to be announced}
+    \item Every team has solved the \emph{same} mandatory part with the \emph{same} procedure -- differences between the systems are differences of \emph{decision}, and a decision is what a defence exposes
 \end{itemize}
 
 \vspace{0.15cm}
 \begin{thinkbox}
-\footnotesize Listening to another team's defence: which High weight of $R(a)$ -- D6, D7, D9, D10, D12 -- carried their decision, and which veto did they have to mitigate? Would \emph{your} measurement contract have caught the risk they name?
+\footnotesize \textbf{A listening prompt, not a review form.} Listening to another team's defence: which High weight of $R(a)$ carried their decision, and which veto did they have to mitigate? Would \emph{your} measurement contract have caught the risk they name?
 \end{thinkbox}
 \end{frame}
 
@@ -542,7 +545,7 @@ the test suite as the agent's operating licence & the eval harness as the model'
 \end{column}
 \end{columns}
 
-\vspace{0.1cm}
+\vspace{0.25cm}
 \textcolor{codegray}{The remaining 50\,\% is the written module examination (60 minutes, open book, closed internet).}
 \end{frame}
 
@@ -559,8 +562,10 @@ the test suite as the agent's operating licence & the eval harness as the model'
     \item the system, presented along the mandatory part -- reproducible demo on a data snapshot
     \item the architecture defence on A2's artefacts: ADR, C4, measurement contract
     \item the reflection: where AI helped and where it hurt -- in building (A) and in the system (B)
-    \item the peer reviews of the other teams
 \end{itemize}
+
+\vspace{0.1cm}
+\small and: peer reviews of the other presentations (lessons 2--4)
 \end{column}
 \begin{column}{0.42\textwidth}
 \textcolor{bankblue}{\textbf{The written examination}}