AISE502/Folien/AISE502_Vorlesung_14_Folien.tex

% !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 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}
\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}{@{}>{\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
\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 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}
\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 \\\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}
\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{0.15cm}
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, and with the limits of the theory -- 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}
% 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}.

\vspace{0.1cm}
\begin{center}
\footnotesize
\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; presentations and defences are \textbf{peer-reviewed} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}

\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)}.
\end{projektbox}
\end{frame}

\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}
    \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): 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 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:

\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}

\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}; 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}

\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 (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 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}

\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 third element of lessons 2--4}
\footnotesize
\begin{itemize}\setlength\itemsep{3pt}
    \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 \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}

\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{0.25cm}
\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)
\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}}
\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}