diff --git a/Folien/AISE502_Vorlesung_14_Folien.pdf b/Folien/AISE502_Vorlesung_14_Folien.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e680fd3 Binary files /dev/null and b/Folien/AISE502_Vorlesung_14_Folien.pdf differ diff --git a/Folien/AISE502_Vorlesung_14_Folien.tex b/Folien/AISE502_Vorlesung_14_Folien.tex new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e661ad3 --- /dev/null +++ b/Folien/AISE502_Vorlesung_14_Folien.tex @@ -0,0 +1,590 @@ +% !TEX encoding = UTF-8 Unicode +% ============================================================================ +% AISE502 -- AI in Software Engineering II +% Lecture 14 slides, typeset with the official FHGR beamer theme +% (beamerthemeFHGR.sty, University of Applied Sciences of the Grisons). +% Slide content is unchanged; only the presentation layer is the FHGR template. +% ============================================================================ +\documentclass[aspectratio=169]{beamer} + +\usetheme[showsection, titlebg=pics/theme_pics/titlepage.png]{FHGR} + +% ============================================ +% PACKAGES +% The theme already loads tikz, graphicx, xcolor, tabularx, colortbl, +% listings, hyperref, environ and xparse -- only the extras are needed here. +% ============================================ +\usepackage[british]{babel} +\usepackage{booktabs} +\usepackage{amsmath} +\usepackage{amssymb} +\usepackage{tcolorbox} +\usetikzlibrary{shapes.geometric, arrows.meta, positioning, fit, backgrounds, calc} + +% ============================================ +% SEMANTIC COLOURS, MAPPED ONTO THE FHGR PALETTE +% The names used throughout the slides are kept, so no slide text changes; +% they now resolve to the FHGR brand colours defined by the theme. +% ============================================ +\colorlet{bankblue}{blue} % FHGR blue (4B92A4) +\colorlet{bankgreen}{green} % FHGR green (817E65) +\colorlet{bankred}{red} % FHGR red (C60219) +\colorlet{codegray}{gray} % FHGR gray (595959) +\colorlet{backcolour}{linen} % FHGR linen (E1D3B5) +\definecolor{aiviolet}{HTML}{6B4E71} % muted plum, kept distinct for the AI lens + +% Attribution labels in English (theme default is German) +\renewcommand{\source}[1]{\par\hfill {\tiny\color{FHGRDeco} Source:\,\itshape #1}} +\renewcommand{\imagesource}[1]{\par\hfill {\tiny\color{FHGRDeco} Image source:\,\itshape #1}} + +% ============================================ +% CUSTOM TCOLORBOXES (same semantics as the script, FHGR colours) +% ============================================ +\newtcolorbox{keypoint}{ + colback=bankblue!7!white, + colframe=bankblue, + title=Key Concept, + fonttitle=\bfseries\small, + boxrule=0.8pt, + arc=2pt, + top=2pt, bottom=2pt, left=4pt, right=4pt +} + +\newtcolorbox{examplebox}[1][]{ + colback=bankgreen!10!white, + colframe=bankgreen, + title={Example: #1}, + fonttitle=\bfseries\small, + boxrule=0.8pt, + arc=2pt, + top=2pt, bottom=2pt, left=4pt, right=4pt +} + +\newtcolorbox{definitionbox}[1][]{ + colback=linen!40!white, + colframe=camel!85!black, + title={Definition: #1}, + fonttitle=\bfseries\small, + boxrule=0.8pt, + arc=2pt, + top=2pt, bottom=2pt, left=4pt, right=4pt +} + +\newtcolorbox{thinkbox}{ + colback=lightGray!35!white, + colframe=darkGray, + title=Discussion, + fonttitle=\bfseries\small, + boxrule=0.8pt, + arc=2pt, + top=2pt, bottom=2pt, left=4pt, right=4pt +} + +\newtcolorbox{hinweisbox}{ + colback=bankred!5!white, + colframe=bankred, + title=Important Note, + fonttitle=\bfseries\small, + boxrule=0.8pt, + arc=2pt, + top=2pt, bottom=2pt, left=4pt, right=4pt +} + +\newtcolorbox{ailinse}[1][]{ + colback=aiviolet!7!white, + colframe=aiviolet, + title={AI Lens: #1}, + fonttitle=\bfseries\small, + boxrule=0.8pt, + arc=2pt, + top=2pt, bottom=2pt, left=4pt, right=4pt +} + +\newtcolorbox{projektbox}{ + colback=bankblue!4!white, + colframe=bankblue!70!black, + title=Project Link: Portfolio Intelligence Platform, + fonttitle=\bfseries\small, + boxrule=0.8pt, + arc=2pt, + top=2pt, bottom=2pt, left=4pt, right=4pt +} + +% ============================================ +% TITLE METADATA +% ============================================ +\title[AI in Software Engineering II]{AISE502: AI in Software Engineering II} +\subtitle{Lecture 14: Synthesis, Presentations, and Architecture Defence\\[0.4ex]{\small Script: synthesis of Parts I--V (no new material); project exercise sheet, M6}} +\author{Dr.\ Florian Herzog} +\shortname{AISE502} +\fullname{Fachhochschule Graub\"unden, Chur -- Autumn Semester 2026} + +\begin{document} + +% ============================================ +% TITLE SLIDE +% ============================================ +\FHGRTitlePage + +% ============================================ +% AGENDA +% ============================================ +\begin{frame}{Agenda} +\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{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} +\end{frame} + +% ============================================ +% SYNTHESIS -- LESSON 1 +% ============================================ +\section{Synthesis -- Lesson 1} + +\begin{frame}{Where we are: the semester at a glance} +\small +\begin{center} +\begin{tabular}{@{}p{1.5cm}p{4.3cm}p{4.2cm}p{2.7cm}@{}} +\toprule +\textbf{Weeks} & \textbf{Lectures} & \textbf{Exercise / project} & \textbf{Deliverables} \\ +\midrule +1--3 & Part I: the framework -- dimensions, scenarios, weights & Kickoff; requirements workshops & \textbf{A1} (week 3) \\ +4--7 & Part II: seven patterns; the match & Architecture study; the match; design & \textbf{A2 $+$ design gate} (week 7) \\ +8--13 & Parts III--V: classes, fit at scale, the AI dimension & Implementation sprints $+$ coaching & Milestones (weeks 9/11/13) \\ +\textbf{14} & \textbf{Synthesis, exam preparation} & \textbf{Presentations $+$ defence} & \textbf{A3} \\ +\bottomrule +\end{tabular} +\end{center} + +\vspace{0.15cm} +\footnotesize +\textbf{Design phase} (weeks 1--7): 2 lessons lecture $+$ 2 exercise -- design first, code later. \textbf{Implementation phase} (weeks 8--13): 3 lessons lecture $+$ 1 coaching. \textbf{Week 14}: 1 lesson synthesis and exam hints $+$ 3 lessons presentations, architecture defence, and peer reviews -- then the written examination. + +\vspace{0.1cm} +\centering\textcolor{codegray}{Lecture 13 was the last lecture of new material -- today's first lesson is a recap of its synthesis and exam orientation, plus your questions.} +\end{frame} + +\begin{frame}{What did AI change? Two temptations, one position} +\emph{\textcolor{bankblue}{What, in the end, did AI change?}} -- \small the bet of the opening, settled in Lecture 13. Architecture teaching in the AI era faces \textbf{two symmetric temptations}: + +\vspace{0.2cm} +\begin{columns}[T] +\begin{column}{0.48\textwidth} +\textcolor{bankblue}{\textbf{Denial}} +\footnotesize +\begin{itemize}\setlength\itemsep{1pt} + \item generative AI as a passing tool fashion that leaves software engineering untouched + \item \textbf{falsified by the adoption data alone}: \textbf{90\,\%} of practitioners report using AI at work by 2025 +\end{itemize} +\end{column} +\begin{column}{0.48\textwidth} +\textcolor{bankblue}{\textbf{Exceptionalism}} +\footnotesize +\begin{itemize}\setlength\itemsep{1pt} + \item AI systems as a new discipline with new vocabulary, new roles, new decision logic + \item \textbf{rejected on the assembled evidence}: nothing AI does, on either axis, required a decision no ADR can record, a correctness no response measure can capture, or a structure no tactic vocabulary describes +\end{itemize} +\end{column} +\end{columns} + +\vspace{0.25cm} +\begin{keypoint} +\footnotesize\centering Between the temptations lies the position defended since Part I: \textbf{absorption}. +\end{keypoint} +\end{frame} + +\begin{frame}{The script read backwards as a single argument: Parts I--V} +\begin{center} +\scriptsize +\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.0}% +\begin{tabular}{@{}p{1.35cm}p{8.5cm}p{3.2cm}@{}} +\toprule +\textbf{Part} & \textbf{What it established} & \textbf{Artefact} \\ +\midrule +\textbf{Part I} & architecture is the set of significant, hard-to-reverse decisions (\textbf{A1}); everything is a trade-off (\textbf{A2}); quality attributes -- not features -- drive structure (\textbf{A3}); requirements decide anything only as measurable scenarios (\textbf{A4}) & the \textbf{twelve dimensions} \\ +\textbf{Part II} & turned seven patterns into \textbf{capability profiles} by explaining every rating through the tactics a pattern bundles or impedes & the consolidated \textbf{capability table} \\ +\textbf{Part III} & turned ten application classes into \textbf{requirements profiles} -- recurring bundles of architecturally significant requirements with response measures and hard constraints & the \textbf{requirements table} \\ +\textbf{Part IV} & matched them: knock-out screening, veto rule, holistic ordinal reading; \textbf{hybrids are the normal case}; the procedure ends in an \textbf{ADR}, every ADR in a \textbf{measurement contract} -- a decision is a hypothesis tested over the life cycle (\textbf{A5}) & the \textbf{$7 \times 10$ fit matrix} \\ +\textbf{Part V} & subjected the whole construction to its hardest contemporary stress test -- \textbf{and the construction held} (\textbf{A6}): Axis A raised the value of the artefacts (documentation as agent context, fitness functions as operating licence); Axis B was absorbed as one class, one dimension, five cell shifts, one composition pattern & Axis A / Axis B outcomes \\ +\bottomrule +\end{tabular} +\end{center} +\end{frame} + +\begin{frame}{Maxim 8 -- the pipeline of this script in one sentence} +\begin{keypoint} +\footnotesize \textbf{Maxim 8.} The theory absorbs AI: a tenth application class, a twelfth dimension, shifted cells, one emergent composition pattern -- \emph{same assumptions, same procedure, same contract}. The pipeline of this script is one sentence long: + +\vspace{0.1cm} +\emph{scenarios with numbers (Part I) meet capability profiles (Part II) and requirements profiles (Part III) in a non-compensatory match (Part IV) whose result is an ADR with a measurement contract -- and nothing about AI, on either axis, changes a single step of it (Part V)} +\end{keypoint} + +\vspace{0.1cm} +\begin{center} +\resizebox{0.78\textwidth}{!}{% +\begin{tikzpicture}[ + sysbox/.style={rectangle, draw, rounded corners=4pt, align=center, font=\small\sffamily, line width=0.8pt, minimum height=1.0cm, minimum width=2.6cm}, + part/.style={sysbox, fill=bankblue!20, draw=bankblue}, + res/.style={sysbox, fill=bankgreen!15, draw=bankgreen}, + arr/.style={-{Stealth[length=2.5mm]}, thick, gray!60!black} +] + \node[part] (p1) at (0,0) {\textbf{Part I}\\scenarios with numbers}; + \node[part] (p2) at (4.7,0.8) {\textbf{Part II}\\capability profiles}; + \node[part] (p3) at (4.7,-0.8) {\textbf{Part III}\\requirements profiles}; + \node[part] (p4) at (9.4,0) {\textbf{Part IV}\\non-compensatory match}; + \node[res] (adr) at (13.8,0) {\textbf{ADR}\\$+$ measurement contract}; + \draw[arr] (p1) -- (p2); \draw[arr] (p1) -- (p3); + \draw[arr] (p2) -- (p4); \draw[arr] (p3) -- (p4); + \draw[arr] (p4) -- (adr); + \draw[dashed, aiviolet, rounded corners=6pt, line width=0.8pt] (-1.8,-1.6) rectangle (15.6,1.6); + \node[font=\small\sffamily, text=aiviolet, anchor=north] at (6.9,-1.65) {\textbf{Part V}: nothing about AI, on either axis, changes a single step}; +\end{tikzpicture}% +} +\end{center} +\end{frame} + +\begin{frame}{The deepest result: one discipline at two binding sites} +\small One symmetry deserves to be made explicit -- the deepest result of Part V, and the frame for your reflection in lessons 2--4: + +\vspace{0.15cm} +\begin{columns}[T] +\begin{column}{0.48\textwidth} +\textcolor{bankblue}{\textbf{Axis A concluded}} +\footnotesize +\begin{itemize}\setlength\itemsep{1pt} + \item \emph{generation} is cheap + \item \emph{verification} is the bottleneck + \item so the \textbf{SDLC} must be rebuilt around machine-checkable specifications, guardrails, and human accountability +\end{itemize} +\end{column} +\begin{column}{0.48\textwidth} +\textcolor{bankblue}{\textbf{Axis B concluded}} +\footnotesize +\begin{itemize}\setlength\itemsep{1pt} + \item \emph{model output} is cheap + \item \emph{validation} is the bottleneck + \item so the \textbf{runtime} must be rebuilt around contracts, ontology guards, eval harnesses, and a human-owned determinism boundary +\end{itemize} +\end{column} +\end{columns} + +\vspace{0.2cm} +\begin{keypoint} +\footnotesize These are the \textbf{same conclusion at two different binding sites}: whether the LLM sits in the toolchain or in the product, the discipline it demands is \textbf{containing cheap, fallible generation behind expensive, explicit verification} -- which is, on reflection, what this module has called \emph{architecture} all along. +\end{keypoint} +\end{frame} + +% ============================================ +% EXAM HINTS +% ============================================ +\section{Exam Hints} + +\begin{frame}{The written examination -- the facts} +\begin{block}{Written examination (50\,\%)} +\begin{itemize}\setlength\itemsep{3pt} + \item \textbf{50\,\%} of the module grade -- the project is the other 50\,\% + \item \textbf{End of semester, 60 minutes} + \item \textbf{Open book:} script and own notes, \emph{on paper} + \item \textbf{Closed internet} + \item Focus: \textbf{architecture reasoning -- profiles, matching, trade-offs} + \item Language: all materials, the script, and the exam in English +\end{itemize} +\end{block} + +\vspace{0.15cm} +\footnotesize\textcolor{codegray}{Unchanged since Lecture 1 -- and unchanged today: no new material enters the examination after Lecture 13.} +\end{frame} + +\begin{frame}{Six learning objectives, five parts} +\begin{center} +\scriptsize +\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.85}% +\begin{tabular}{@{}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{5.4cm}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{7.2cm}@{}} +\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 \\ +\bottomrule +\end{tabular} +\end{center} +\end{frame} + +\begin{frame}{Open book: the map and the four tables} +\footnotesize +\textcolor{bankblue}{\textbf{Your map: Maxim 8's one sentence}} +\begin{center} +\vspace{-0.1cm} +\resizebox{0.8\textwidth}{!}{% +\begin{tikzpicture}[ + sysbox/.style={rectangle, draw, rounded corners=4pt, align=center, font=\small\sffamily, line width=0.8pt, minimum height=1.0cm, minimum width=3.0cm}, + part/.style={sysbox, fill=bankblue!20, draw=bankblue}, + res/.style={sysbox, fill=bankgreen!15, draw=bankgreen}, + arr/.style={-{Stealth[length=2.5mm]}, thick, gray!60!black} +] + \node[part] (p1) at (0,0) {\textbf{Part I}\\scenarios with numbers}; + \node[part] (p2) at (4.8,0) {\textbf{Parts II $+$ III}\\capability $+$ requirements profiles}; + \node[part] (p4) at (9.6,0) {\textbf{Part IV}\\non-compensatory match}; + \node[res] (adr) at (13.8,0) {\textbf{ADR}\\$+$ measurement contract}; + \draw[arr] (p1) -- (p2); \draw[arr] (p2) -- (p4); \draw[arr] (p4) -- (adr); + \node[font=\small\sffamily, text=aiviolet, anchor=north] at (6.9,-0.65) {\textbf{Part V}: AI changes no step of it}; +\end{tikzpicture}% +} +\end{center} + +\vspace{-0.2cm} +\begin{columns}[T] +\begin{column}{0.48\textwidth} +\textcolor{bankblue}{\textbf{The four tables the argument runs on}} +\begin{itemize}\setlength\itemsep{0pt} + \item the \textbf{twelve dimensions} (Part I) + \item the \textbf{consolidated capability table} (Part II) + \item the \textbf{requirements table} of the ten classes (Part III) + \item the \textbf{$7 \times 10$ fit matrix} (Part IV) +\end{itemize} +\end{column} +\begin{column}{0.48\textwidth} +\textcolor{bankblue}{\textbf{Part V's additions}} +\begin{itemize}\setlength\itemsep{0pt} + \item the \textbf{D12 row with rationales}; the \textbf{agent capability-profile sketch}; the \textbf{task-signature table}; the \textbf{OWASP table} +\end{itemize} +\textcolor{bankblue}{\textbf{The spine}}: the six load-bearing assumptions \textbf{A1--A6} -- and the Maxims, up to Maxim 8 +\end{column} +\end{columns} + +\vspace{0.05cm} +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: + +\vspace{0.05cm} +\begin{center} +\scriptsize +\begin{tabular}{@{}p{5.6cm}p{6.4cm}@{}} +\toprule +\textbf{Axis A artefact} & \textbf{Axis B artefact} \\ +\midrule +\texttt{AGENTS.md} & the system prompt and ontology \\ +the CI fitness function & the runtime ontology guard \\ +the code-review obligation & the human-oversight duty of the AI Act \\ +the test suite as the agent's operating licence & the eval harness as the model's operating licence \\ +\bottomrule +\end{tabular} +\end{center} + +\vspace{0.05cm} +\begin{itemize}\setlength\itemsep{1pt} + \item For each pair: is this genuinely \emph{one} engineering discipline observed at two binding sites -- or are there differences of kind, in \textbf{reversibility}, in \textbf{accountability}, in \textbf{failure semantics}, that the symmetry hides? + \item And if it is one discipline: which parts of this script would survive the next order-of-magnitude improvement in model capability -- and which would you expect to rewrite? +\end{itemize} +\end{thinkbox} +\end{frame} + +% ============================================ +% PRESENTATIONS, DEFENCE, PEER REVIEWS -- LESSONS 2-4 +% ============================================ +\section{Presentations, Defence, Peer Reviews -- Lessons 2--4} + +\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}. + +\vspace{0.1cm} +\begin{center} +\footnotesize +\begin{tabular}{@{}p{1.6cm}p{4.0cm}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} \\ +\bottomrule +\end{tabular} +\end{center} + +\vspace{0.1cm} +\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). +\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}: + +\vspace{0.1cm} +\begin{enumerate}\setlength\itemsep{2pt} + \item Architecture \textbf{derived from the ontology}, documented with \textbf{ADRs} and a \textbf{C4-style diagram} + \item \textbf{Deterministic services} with full, exact tests against the reference vectors + \item \textbf{Orchestrated advisor} with 2--3 specialised sub-agents cooperating only via service contracts + \item \textbf{Ontology guard} on all AI insights; \textbf{resilience} against external-data outages + \item \textbf{Evaluation harness} for the AI component; basic \textbf{observability} (cost and latency) +\end{enumerate} + +\vspace{0.1cm} +\begin{hinweisbox} +\footnotesize +\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) +\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: + +\vspace{0.1cm} +\begin{center} +\footnotesize +\begin{tabular}{@{}p{3.4cm}p{9.3cm}@{}} +\toprule +\textbf{Emphasis} & \textbf{What is assessed} \\ +\midrule +\textbf{Architecture \& trade-offs} & quality of decomposition, contracts, deterministic/non-deterministic separation, ADRs \\ +\textbf{Robustness} & resilience, guards, graceful degradation \\ +\textbf{Quality} & tests for deterministic services, eval harness for AI \\ +\textbf{AI integration} & correct anti-corruption layering and ontology guarding \\ +\textbf{Operation} & observability of cost/latency \\ +\bottomrule +\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. +\end{keypoint} +\end{frame} + +\begin{frame}{Reflection: where AI helped and where it hurt -- Axis A and Axis B} +\small The second half of M6 is the reflection -- on \textbf{both axes} of Part V, in the vocabulary of the synthesis: + +\vspace{0.15cm} +\begin{columns}[T] +\begin{column}{0.48\textwidth} +\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 +\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} +\end{itemize} +\end{column} +\end{columns} + +\vspace{0.2cm} +\begin{keypoint} +\footnotesize The reflection has a thesis to test against your own project: \textbf{one discipline at two binding sites} -- containing cheap, fallible generation behind expensive, explicit verification. Did it hold in \emph{your} build and in \emph{your} system? Where did it not? +\end{keypoint} +\end{frame} + +\begin{frame}{Peer reviews: the other teams are the second audience} +\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 +\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? +\end{thinkbox} +\end{frame} + +\begin{frame}{Assessment of the project (50\,\% of the module grade)} +\footnotesize The project counts \textbf{50\,\%} of the module grade -- including: + +\vspace{0.05cm} +\begin{itemize}\setlength\itemsep{1pt} + \item the \textbf{requirements dossier} (deliverable A1, week 3) + \item the \textbf{architecture dossier} with ADR and measurement contract (deliverable A2, week 7) + \item the \textbf{implementation} (weeks 8--13, milestones weeks 9/11/13) + \item the \textbf{final presentation with architecture defence} (deliverable A3, week 14) +\end{itemize} + +\vspace{0.05cm} +\begin{columns}[T] +\begin{column}{0.55\textwidth} +\textcolor{bankblue}{\textbf{Evaluation emphasises}} +\begin{itemize}\setlength\itemsep{0pt} + \item \textbf{Architecture \& trade-offs} + \item \textbf{Robustness} + \item \textbf{Quality} + \item \textbf{AI integration} + \item \textbf{Operation} +\end{itemize} +\end{column} +\begin{column}{0.42\textwidth} +\textcolor{bankblue}{\textbf{Distinction (K\"ur) -- for top grades}} +\begin{itemize}\setlength\itemsep{0pt} + \item autonomous planning + \item self-repair loops + \item model routing with cost/latency reported + \item CI/CD and richer observability (tracing) +\end{itemize} +\end{column} +\end{columns} + +\vspace{0.1cm} +\textcolor{codegray}{The remaining 50\,\% is the written module examination (60 minutes, open book, closed internet).} +\end{frame} + +% ============================================ +% CLOSING +% ============================================ +\section{Closing} + +\begin{frame}{The last milestone: deliverable A3 -- then the written examination} +\begin{columns}[T] +\begin{column}{0.55\textwidth} +\textcolor{bankblue}{\textbf{Deliverable A3 checklist (M6)}} +\begin{itemize}\small + \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} +\end{column} +\begin{column}{0.42\textwidth} +\textcolor{bankblue}{\textbf{The written examination}} +\begin{itemize}\small + \item 50\,\%; end of semester; \textbf{60 minutes} + \item \textbf{open book}: script and own notes, on paper; \textbf{closed internet} + \item focus: \textbf{architecture reasoning -- profiles, matching, trade-offs} +\end{itemize} + +\vspace{0.2cm} +\textcolor{bankblue}{\textbf{Reading}} +\begin{itemize}\small + \item \textbf{the whole script, Parts I--V} -- the four tables and Maxim 8's one sentence as the map +\end{itemize} +\end{column} +\end{columns} +\end{frame} + +% ============================================ +% END +% ============================================ +\FHGRClosingPage[][{\color{white}\parbox{0.9\paperwidth}{\centering Thank you!\\[3ex] +{\normalsize\mdseries Dr.\ Florian Herzog\\[0.9ex] +Fachhochschule Graub\"unden, Chur\\[2.4ex] +{\small AISE502 -- AI in Software Engineering II}}}}] + +\end{document}