Overview
The Human Engineering Challenge
Your company's training architecture from Portfolio 2 has been approved for development. Before production begins, your legal division has forwarded a set of binding regulatory mandates issued by a Standards Committee governing your device category. The rules are final.
General Counsel has informed you that shipping a non-compliant training system exposes the company to regulatory action and civil liability in every jurisdiction where these mandates apply. She has requested a compliance audit and remediation plan before authorizing production.
Objectives: 1) For each mandate, determine whether your system complies, fails, or falls outside the rule's scope, and respond accordingly. Then 2) rebuild your Portfolio 2 to reflect the changes that you agree to. Finally 3) compile a full package with appendicies. How to get the Regulatory Mandate PDF for your Portfolio 2 Device:
Step 1. Open w07a1 – What is my Interface? and find your partner's device. Note: student numbers in that file belong to the device's builder, not you. Identify the device category.
Step 2. Open the Regulatory Mandates (Portfolio 3) folder in Files.
Step 3. Download the regulatory mandate that matches the device category from Step 1.
Constraints:
- You are auditing and revisiting your Portfolio 2 training architecture. You are not starting over.
- Every mandate must receive a response. No mandate may be skipped.
- Each mandate response is exactly one sentence.
Response Types
For each mandate, provide exactly one of the following. Each response is a single sentence beginning with its type letter.
Type A: Compliant
Name the specific Portfolio 2 element -- mechanism, feedback loop, training gate, or heuristic -- that satisfies the mandate. "My system addresses this" is not sufficient.
Type B: Compliance Failure and Redesign or Partial Compliance
State what fails or is missing and the concrete redesign that resolves it. For partial compliance State what is compliant, as well as what fails or is missing and the concrete redesign that resolves it. The redesign must be implementable by another engineer reading your sentence.
Type C: Non-Applicability Argument
In one sentence, make a technical case that the mandate falls outside your architecture's scope, grounded in the specific mechanism or population difference that makes the rule a category error. Then, in a second sentence, propose a revision to the mandate's language that would make its boundary of applicability explicit. A weak Non-Applicability Argument will be evaluated less favorably than a Type B redesign. Use this only when the technical case is strong.
Deliverable Requirements
Format: You, individually, will submit a single PDF file. Filename: [YOURSURNAME]_Portfolio_3.pdf
The deliverable is a one-page professional engineering compliance memo of no more than 750 words. It contains:
- Memo header (To, From, Date, Re)
- Brief establishment of the situation.
- Mandate responses, labeled by mandate number, response type declared first
- Unintended Consequence: Identify one way your collective compliance changes could degrade the original training system's effectiveness, safety, or user acceptance. State the tradeoff.
Appendices (not counted toward the one-page memo or word limit):
- Appendix A: Full text of all Standards Committee mandates for your device category
- Appendix B: your rebuilt Portfolio 2, reflecting all changes described in your memo.
- Appendix C: Generative AI Statement and Transcript
Notes
Every mandate must have a response. Type A and D responses must point to a named, specific element of Portfolio 2. Vague claims of compliance will not receive credit. Type B redesigns must be concrete enough that another engineer could implement them. Type C should be used with caution: arguments are held to a higher standard than Type B redesigns. The evaluative test is whether your non-applicability sentence identifies a genuine category error, not merely an inconvenient requirement, and whether your proposed revision would survive technical scrutiny. The Unintended Consequence is graded on whether you identified a real tradeoff, not on whether your system is perfect.
Generative AI Policy
Generative AI may be used on this assignment. The engineering judgments, compliance determinations, and redesign decisions must reflect your own analysis, and you are entirely responsible for understanding all submitted content. Provide a brief statement of how you used Generative AI, its contribution to your work, and your entire prompt/response transcript in Appendix C.