# 01 — Source Map

Claim-level provenance for every key concept in `02_INFS3700_Final_Exam_Revision_EN.html` and `03_INFS3700_Final_Exam_Revision_CN.html`.

**Page-reference convention.** None of the lecture decks print slide numbers on the slides. Every "slide N" in this pack means **PDF page N, 1-indexed**, which corresponds 1:1 to slide order. The single exception is the Week 10 deck, which prints "23" on its Exam Questions slide — and that printed number happens to match PDF page 23.

**Source types**
`A1` Week 10 lecturer slides (authoritative for scope/format) · `A2` official assessment brief · `A3` lecturer slides Weeks 1–9 · `A4` tutorial preparation file or tutorial case study · `A5` spoken clarification from a lecturer or tutor (lecture/tutorial recording or transcript), plus tutor written feedback — supporting, never overriding a slide or brief · `S1` student coursework · `SUP` supplementary explanation added by this guide

**Confidence** — this column rates how confidently the claim can be *extracted from the cited source*. It is deliberately separate from **Type**, which rates the source's *authority*. A transcript row can therefore be `High` confidence while remaining `A5` authority: the speaker said it unmistakably, and it is still spoken clarification rather than printed course content.

`High` — directly and unambiguously stated in the cited source, and independently re-verified (printed verbatim on a slide, or a clear unhedged statement located by literal search in a transcript).
`Medium` — the overall claim is clear, but something qualifies it: it is stated only once, or the speaker hedges ("I think"), or ASR quality or speaker attribution introduces doubt, or the surrounding context is incomplete.
`Low` — inferred, disputed by another source, materially incomplete, or dependent on reconstructing uncertain speech. Every Low row is flagged in the guide itself.

---

## 1. Exam scope and format

| # | Topic | Claim / definition | Source file | Page | Type | Conf. | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1 | Exam format | 2-hour writing time + 15 minutes reading | `10 UX  SD in Industry - Lecture Slides T2 2026.pdf` | 14 | A1 | High | |
| 1.2 | Weighting | 40% of overall mark; paper marked out of 100 | same | 14 | A1 | High | |
| 1.3 | Mode | Face-to-face, Kensington campus, invigilated by the University Examination Unit | same | 14, 15 | A1 | High | |
| 1.4 | Date/time | 1:45pm – 4:00pm Saturday 15 August 2026 (AET) | same | 14 | A1 | High | Highlighted on the slide |
| 1.5 | Platform | Inspera + Safe Exam Browser; Inspera closes automatically at time | same | 15, 19 | A1 | High | SEB versions: Mac 3.5.4, Windows 3.10.0 |
| 1.6 | Question structure | 3 questions, all with sub-parts. Q1 25 (10+15), Q2 20 (8+12), Q3 55 (10+5+10+15+15). Total 100 | same | 23 | A1 | High | Only place the mark split appears |
| 1.7 | Possible formats | Theoretical questions · Case study questions · Drawing out artefacts · "Always use examples to support your points!!!" | same | 12 | A1 | High | |
| 1.8 | Possible topics — assignment tasks | Participant criteria · Workshop / interview planning · Synthesis & analysis · Wireframes · UX Testing | same | 12 | A1 | High | |
| 1.9 | Possible topics — P&P tasks | Heuristics evaluation · Research methods · Design principles · Storyboards · Service design 5Ps · Service blueprint | same | 12 | A1 | High | |
| 1.10 | Format exclusions | No mid to high fidelity sketching · No calculations required · No referencing required | same | 13 | A1 | High | |
| 1.11 | Topic exclusions | Personas & journey maps · Design patterns & design systems · Service design capabilities | same | 13 | A1 | High | Slide heading: "Some topics that won't be included" |
| 1.12 | No marking criteria | "We will not provide marking criteria and there will be NO qualitative feedback" | same | 15 | A1 | High | Basis for labelling all answer structures as revision guidance |
| 1.13 | Practice questions | Three 10-mark questions, reproduced verbatim in Chapter 0 and Chapter 17 | same | 31 | A1 | High | 10 min draft, 5 min peer critique |
| 1.14 | Exam-day materials | Physical student ID (electronic not accepted); pen/pencil; laptop with SEB; smartphone for MFA | same | 16, 18 | A1 | High | |
| 1.15 | Practice test advice | Re-run the Inspera Student Practice Test on **14 August**, the day before | same | 21 | A1 | High | |
| 1.16 | Suggested timing per mark | 1.2 min/mark → Q1 ≈30, Q2 ≈24, Q3 ≈66 min | — | — | SUP | — | **Arithmetic by this guide.** Labelled "revision guidance" wherever it appears |

---

## 2. The Double Diamond and process

| # | Topic | Claim / definition | Source file | Page | Type | Conf. | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.1 | Double Diamond phases | Discover · Define · Develop · Deliver | Week 10 deck | 11 | A1 | High | Same diagram at W2 s15, W3 s12, W4 s6, W5 s5, W7 s5, W8 s7 |
| 2.2 | Define (pre-stage) | "Define the problem & scope" | Week 10 deck | 11 | A1 | High | Note: "Define" is used twice — once as pre-stage activity, once as phase name |
| 2.3 | Empathise | "Understand the problem using primary and secondary sources" | Week 10 deck | 11 | A1 | High | |
| 2.4 | Frame | "Reframe the problem and identify the key opportunities" | Week 10 deck | 11 | A1 | High | |
| 2.5 | Ideate | "Generate the ideas and prioritise concepts for testing" | Week 10 deck | 11 | A1 | High | |
| 2.6 | Prototype | "Bring concepts to life and define hypotheses" | Week 10 deck | 11 | A1 | High | Only place hypotheses appear in the diagram |
| 2.7 | Test & Learn | "Test concepts with customers to gain feedback" | Week 10 deck | 11 | A1 | High | |
| 2.8 | Iterate | "Refine, Test & Learn" | Week 10 deck | 11 | A1 | High | |
| 2.9 | Two halves | "1 DESIGN THE RIGHT THING / 2 DESIGN THINGS RIGHT" | `02 UX Research…T2 2026.pdf` | 7 | A3 | High | Slide contains the typo "PROBLEM DEFINTION" |
| 2.10 | Two mindsets | Divergent Thinking (DIVERGE / CREATE CHOICES); Convergent Thinking (CONVERGE / MAKE CHOICES) | W2 | 8 | A3 | High | |
| 2.11 | Gateway outcomes | Insight into the Problem · Scope down the Focus · Potential Solutions · Solutions that Work & Receive Feedback | W2 | 7 | A3 | High | |
| 2.12 | **Develop vs Design** | W5 s5 says **Develop**; W5 s36 says **Design** | `05 Wireframing Prototyping…T1 2026.pdf` | 5, 36 | A3 | **Low** | **Source conflict.** Guide uses *Develop* (6 decks incl. Week 10) and flags the conflict |
| 2.13 | UX Research Process | Plan · Prepare · Field · Analyse · Report | W2 / W3 | 59 / 13 | A3 | High | For discovery research |
| 2.14 | Testing Process | Plan · Prepare · Moderate · Outcomes | `07 UX Testing…T1 2026.pdf` | 17 | A3 | High | For usability testing — a different model |
| 2.15 | Design squiggle | RESEARCH · INSIGHTS · DESIGN & TEST · SOLVE & VALIDATE · EXECUTE | `08 SD Intro…T1 2026.pdf` | 23 | A3 | High | W2 s6 has an unlabelled version |

---

## 3. UX, Service Design and CX

| # | Topic | Claim / definition | Source file | Page | Type | Conf. | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.1 | UX definition | "The process of understanding and solving specific problems, often being discrete, digital interface solutions" | W1 / W8 | 18 / 15 | A3 | High | Identical on both slides |
| 3.2 | SD definition | "The understanding of how services are created, delivered and experienced by your customers, noting specific problems in an experience journey that need to be improved" | W1 / W8 | 18 / 15 | A3 | High | |
| 3.3 | CX definition | "How your customers perceive their interactions with your company" | W1 / W8 | 18 / 15 | A3 | High | |
| 3.4 | Scope wording | UX = "Various shapes (not limited to 1)"; SD = "Inner ring"; CX = "Outer ring" | W1 / W8 | 18 / 15 | A3 | High | |
| 3.5 | Coffee-shop example | UX = payment system/digital menu; SD = ordering, waiting, receiving; CX = discovering there is no almond milk | W1 / W8 | 17 / 14 | A3 | High | Fonteijn quote on both slides |
| 3.6 | Why UX matters | Increase usability · Reduce errors · Generate revenue · Meet needs | W1 | 25 | A3 | High | Slide contains "creates systems that easy to understand" [sic] |
| 3.7 | Benefits of SD | Six benefits, reproduced verbatim in Chapter 2 | W8 | 20 | A3 | High | |
| 3.8 | What SD is NOT | Aesthetics · Customer service · Service recovery | W8 | 16 | A3 | High | |
| 3.9 | A product is… | Tangible · Channels · Physical · Owned · Feature driven | W8 | 10 | A3 | High | |
| 3.10 | A service is… | "intangible economic goods… Outcomes are generated by value exchanges that occur through mediums called touchpoints" | W8 | 11 | A3 | High | Source of the touchpoint definition |
| 3.11 | SD origin | "first introduced as a design discipline at the Köln International School of Design in 1991… a mindset, process and toolset" | W8 | 12 | A3 | High | |
| 3.12 | Practitioner definitions | Birgit Mager · Oliver King · Lou Downe | W8 | 13 | A3 | High | |
| 3.13 | Business case stats | Tempkin Group 5x/5x/7x/4x; Harris Interactive 86% | W8 | 19 | A3 | High | |
| 3.14 | Four org challenges | Lack of Differentiation · Relying on old systems, processes & models · Disconnect between customer & business · Inability to Innovate | W8 | 18 | A3 | High | Uber vs taxi example |

---

## 4. Research methods and planning

| # | Topic | Claim / definition | Source file | Page | Type | Conf. | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4.1 | How a project starts | Problem/opportunity identified · Current state analysis · Competitor analysis | Week 10 deck | 6 | A1 | High | Links current-state analysis to heuristics analysis |
| 4.2 | Sources to rely on | Business stakeholders (POs, SMEs, front stage & back stage employees) · Customers and end users · Existing data analytics | Week 10 deck | 7 | A1 | High | |
| 4.3 | Preparing for research | Physical / Digital set-up; practice run; roles: meeting organizer, facilitator, note taker, time keeper, tech set up | Week 10 deck | 8 | A1 | High | |
| 4.4 | Facilitating workshops | Set the scene (4 prompts) · Understand stakeholders · Understand the current experience (joys, pain points, wish list) | Week 10 deck | 9 | A1 | High | Source of "current joys / current pain points" |
| 4.5 | Primary research | Interviews, surveys, focus groups | W2 | 17 | A3 | High | |
| 4.6 | Secondary research | Desk Research, Semiotic Analysis, Data Analytics, Complaints Data, Social Media | W2 | 17 | A3 | High | |
| 4.7 | Qual purposes | To explore · investigate · understand · expand the focus · use your senses | W2 | 20 | A3 | High | |
| 4.8 | Quant purposes | To measure and assess · confirm · justify and validate · 'close down' · measurable in number | W2 | 20 | A3 | High | |
| 4.9 | Qual/quant on the diamond | Qual → Discover + Develop; Quant → Define + Deliver | W2 | 20 | A3 | High | Arrow colours on the slide |
| 4.10 | Risk × Problem Clarity | Ship it and Measure · Design Heavy · Research Light · Research Heavy | W2 | 22 | A3 | High | Axis definitions quoted in guide |
| 4.11 | Quant method examples | Hotspots/Eye Tracking · Card Sorting · A/B Testing · Web Analytics | W2 | 26 | A3 | High | Slide has no printed title |
| 4.12 | Qual method examples | User interviews · Contextual Inquiry · Observation · Focus Group / Online Communities | W2 | 37 | A3 | High | Slide has no printed title |
| 4.13 | Card sorting classification | Taught as **quantitative** in this course: "Provides quantitative evidence (closed)" | W2 | 26, 27 | A3 | High | Differs from common external classification — flagged in guide |
| 4.14 | Open vs closed sort | Open = respondents create their own groups and labels; closed = place items into existing groups only | W2 | 27 | A3 | High | |
| 4.15 | Survey rules | 4 scripting rules; 3 question types; 4 tips; 3 requirements | W2 | 29, 30, 32, 34 | A3 | High | |
| 4.16 | Bad→good survey questions | Five verbatim pairs | W2 | 31 | A3 | High | |
| 4.17 | Research ethics | Consent · Privacy · Upfront & Transparent | W2 | 21 | A3 | High | Reinforced W2 s63, W7 s27 |
| 4.18 | GooB | "Get Out Of the Building… from Lean UX (2008)" | W2 | 21 | A3 | High | |
| 4.19 | Research plan canvas | Problem Statement · project objective · approach + WHY · sample + WHY · key research questions | W2 | 62 | A3 | High | Warning quote reproduced |
| 4.20 | Preparation tasks | Recruitment · Activity · Operations · Ethics | W2 | 63 | A3 | High | |
| 4.21 | Stakeholder/SME interviews | Shared understanding · Context · Success · Customer | W2 | 61 | A3 | High | |
| 4.22 | Triangulation | Definition + "a form of cross-checking"; four types (Data, Methodological, Investigator, Theory) | W3 | 32, 33 | A3 | High | Attributed on slide to Denzin (1978), Patton (1999) |
| 4.23 | Method strengths/limitations | Interview advantages (Personal, Easier for customer, Follow-up) and limitations (Time, Training) | W2 | 42 | A3 | High | Other rows in the matrix marked SUP where they generalise |

---

## 5. Participants, workshops, interviews

| # | Topic | Claim / definition | Source file | Page | Type | Conf. | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5.1 | Rules for recruiting | Who / What / How / Where / When, verbatim | W2 | 67 | A3 | High | Two prompts demand exclusions and sampling impact |
| 5.2 | Worked screener | 10 participants, gender/age quotas, behavioural must-haves, explicit exclusion | W2 | 67 | A3 | High | Contains "at least at least" and "Stationary" [sic] |
| 5.3 | Where to find participants | Family and friends · Student societies and social media · Companies & organizations | W3 | 5 | A3 | High | |
| 5.4 | Participant groups rule | "You can focus on 1 main user group… groups who… identify more distinct sub groups will perform better" | W3 | 5 | A3 | High | |
| 5.5 | Recruitment sources (testing) | Colleagues · Friends & family · Online survey · Professional recruiters; "Always collect consent" | W7 | 27 | A3 | High | |
| 5.6 | Finding participants (3 criteria) | Target market · Sample size · Screening for project fit | W7 | 26 | A3 | High | Slide gives labels only, no explanatory text |
| 5.7 | Magic of 5 users | 31% error probability; 3→65%, 4→75%, 5→85%, 6→90%, 8→95%, 12→99% | W7 | 35 | A3 | High | **Attributed to Jeff Sauro of MeasuringU, NOT Nielsen** |
| 5.8 | Workshop numbers | 6–8 participants; groups of 4–5 from the same tutorial | Group Assignment | 3 | A2 | High | Repeated W4 s3, W4 tut prep p2 |
| 5.9 | Workshop definition | "opportunities for researchers, designers, business stakeholders, and even customers to come together…" | W2 | 52 | A3 | High | |
| 5.10 | Four workshop types | Kick off & scoping · Co-design · Customer · Learning | W2 | 53 | A3 | High | s57's italic subtitle duplicates s55's — likely a slide copy-paste error |
| 5.11 | Workshop agenda | Beginning (welcome, icebreaker, project context, intro to process) / Middle (activities) / End (reflections, feedback) | W2 | 55 | A3 | High | |
| 5.12 | Interview session structure | Beginning (ground rules, start broad) / Middle (deep dive, exercises) / End (wind down, thank & close) | W2 | 69 | A3 | High | **Different steps from 5.11** — flagged in guide |
| 5.13 | 4Cs framework | Collect (Understand current state) · Choose (Identify common problems) · Create (Ideas to solve problems) · Commit (Prioritize the best ideas) + 40 activities | W2 / W3 | 10 / 8 | A3 | High | Slide numbering error: two items "4", none "5". Reproduced with a note |
| 5.14 | Storyboarding in 4Cs | Commit activity **#34** | W2 | 10 | A3 | High | |
| 5.15 | Workshop plan components | Timelines and roles · Participants · 4Cs workshop activities | Group Assignment | 4 | A2 | High | |
| 5.16 | Workshop roles | workshop facilitator, participant recruiters, note taker, tech set up, presentation compiling and design | Group Assignment | 4 | A2 | High | |
| 5.17 | Participant requirements | "Who are the stakeholders for your problem space? Who is the audience for your proposed solutions?" | Group Assignment | 5 | A2 | High | |
| 5.18 | Mock-participants | "get your participants to play the role of a stakeholder that you assign to them, and provide them with a brief of mindsets and attitudes" | Group Assignment | 5 | A2 | High | |
| 5.19 | Tutor's criteria dimensions | discipline (STEM, business, arts) · year level · "and other relevant dimensions" | `tutor给 plan的反馈.docx` | — | A5 | High | Written feedback, unambiguous |
| 5.20 | Tutor's per-activity rule | Specify (1) instructions, (2) questions, (3) time allocation | same | — | A5 | High | |
| 5.21 | Tutor's sequencing rule | "first two Cs should be digging into the problem, and the last two should be steering toward solutions" | same | — | A5 | High | |
| 5.22 | Interview question types | AVOID Leading/Hypothetical/Design; TRY What/Why/Summing up/No Questions | W2 | 44 | A3 | High | **Separate taxonomy from survey question types** |
| 5.23 | Interview protocol a–g | Seven required contents | W2 | 47 | A3 | High | |
| 5.24 | Discussion guide | 3 principles + 5-section 60-min structure (4/10/25/20/1) | W2 / W7 | 66 / 36 | A3 | High | Identical on both slides |
| 5.25 | Guide-writing tips | Five tips (01–05) | W2 | 65 | A3 | High | |
| 5.26 | Forming/Storming/Norming/Performing | Four named group-dynamic stages | W2 | 64 | A3 | High | Alongside "What you'll write" vs "What actually happens" |

---

## 6. Synthesis, analysis and framing

| # | Topic | Claim / definition | Source file | Page | Type | Conf. | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6.1 | Sensemaking steps | Analyse · Synthesize · Frame & Focus, with full definitions | W3 | 18 | A3 | High | Slide typo "Pyschologists" |
| 6.2 | Method-to-step map | Analyse = affinity mapping + triangulate; Synthesize = personas + journey mapping; Frame & Focus = problem framing + prioritization | W3 | 19 | A3 | High | Both Synthesize methods are exam-excluded |
| 6.3 | Themes to look for | Attributes · Pain points · Sentiment · Problems · Behaviors · Requests and needs · Goals | W3 | 15 | A3 | High | |
| 6.4 | Insight / IRA | "groupings of observations that bubble up into a clear theme that is IRA: Interesting, Relevant, Actionable" | W3 | 16, 17 | A3 | High | Same three filters at W7 s46 |
| 6.5 | Affinity mapping moves | Capture · Group · Label; based on the KJ Method – Jiro Kawakita | W3 | 21 | A3 | High | |
| 6.6 | Affinity four steps | Including "(not by solutions)" in step 2 | W3 | 22 | A3 | High | |
| 6.7 | Affinity best practices | Silence · Team · Timebox | W3 | 25 | A3 | High | |
| 6.8 | Grouping size rules | <3 too small · >10 too big · at least 2 users | W3 | 27 | A3 | High | |
| 6.9 | When to stop | Four signals; "No new insights — the surest sign" | W3 | 30 | A3 | High | |
| 6.10 | Pain points definition | "specific problems faced by current or prospective customers… bottlenecks or moments of frustration or delay" | W3 | 51 | A3 | Medium | **Definition sits on a journey-map slide (excluded section).** Guide cites the definition and flags the location |
| 6.11 | Problem statement | Definition + "Does my concept solve the problem?" | W3 | 56 | A3 | High | |
| 6.12 | Five Ws | What / Where / Who / When / Why, verbatim | W3 | 56 | A3 | High | |
| 6.13 | User Story syntax | "I am a … / Trying to… / But… / Because … / Which makes me feel …" | W3 | 57, 58 | A3 | High | Slide prints "Desian" [sic] |
| 6.14 | Job Story syntax | "When … / I want to … / So I can … / But …" (Alan Klement) | W3 | 57, 58 | A3 | High | |
| 6.15 | Six framing traps | Anchoring · Wish Listing · Frankenstein · Boiling the ocean · Amplifying feedback · Being presumptuous | W3 | 59 | A3 | High | With healthcare examples; "Healthcare provides" [sic] |
| 6.16 | HMW definition | "turns challenges into opportunities for design… It doesn't suggest a particular solution" | W3 | 60 | A3 | High | |
| 6.17 | HMW four steps | Verbatim how-to | W3 | 60 | A3 | High | |
| 6.18 | HMW good/better/poor | Six worked statements across three problems | W3 | 61 | A3 | High | Only place the contrast is drawn |
| 6.19 | Pain point → HMW | Three worked pairs (campus events, mentor matching, job onboarding) | Week 10 / W5 | 27 / 53 | A1 | High | **Key scope evidence** that the reasoning survives the journey-map exclusion |
| 6.20 | Prioritisation | "Prioritization activities need criteria" + worked criteria | W3 | 63 | A3 | High | |
| 6.21 | Impact × Importance | Impact = customer benefit; Importance = business benefit; 1–5; zones incl. "INCLUDE OR DIE" | W3 | 64 | A3 | High | |
| 6.22 | Impact × Effort | Start Here / Do Next / Proceed Carefully / Avoid | W3 | 65 | A3 | High | **Different axes from 6.21** — flagged |
| 6.23 | MoSCoW etc. | M/S/C/W; T-Shirt Sizing; Pebble, Rock, Boulder; Drafting dots; M&Ms | W3 | 66 | A3 | High | |
| 6.24 | Feasibility definitions | Technical feasibility; Design feasibility | W3 | 67 | A3 | High | Scoring table described only — calculations excluded |
| 6.25 | Synthesis in the brief | "affinity mapping to group your insights or How Might We statements to frame your problem" | Group Assignment | 6 | A2 | High | Names both techniques explicitly |

---

## 7. Heuristics

| # | Topic | Claim / definition | Source file | Page | Type | Conf. | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7.1 | **The five heuristics** | 01 Software should be forthcoming · 02 Software should be self-confident · 03 Visibility of system status · 04 Match between system & real world · 05 Don't waste my time! | `01 UX Intro…T2 2026_Students.pdf` | 35 | A3 | High | Slide title: "Combining 5 heuristics for INFS3700" |
| 7.2 | **Attribution** | Cooper ("Software should be polite") → 01, 02; Nielsen → 03, 04; Krug → 05 | W1 | 35 | A3 | High | Shown by coloured bands. **Not "Nielsen's heuristics"** |
| 7.3 | Wording variants | s39 spells "and" not "&"; s40 drops the "!" | W1 | 35, 39, 40 | A3 | High | Guide uses s35 as canonical (matches tutorial prep) |
| 7.4 | Positive framings | forthcoming → "It is proactive with helping users" (etc., all five) | Week 10 / W5 | 25 / 51 | A1 | High | Identical on both |
| 7.5 | Negative framings | "Software is not forthcoming" (etc., all five) | Week 10 / W5 | 26 / 52 | A1 | High | "so what?" column deliberately blank |
| 7.6 | Per-heuristic definitions | Google Maps, Gmail undo, progress bars, recycle bin, three-tier pricing | W1 | 36–40 | A3 | High | |
| 7.7 | What heuristics are | "Characteristics of best practice · Criteria to measure against · Rules of thumb · Principles to follow" | W1 | 30 | A3 | High | |
| 7.8 | Why heuristic evaluation | Quickly perform an evaluation; standardise evaluations; refine UX skills | W1 | 30 | A3 | High | |
| 7.9 | Nielsen 10 | Ten principles in slide order and slide spelling | W1 | 31 | A3 | High | "Aesthetic And Minimalististic Design" [sic] — reproduce, don't correct |
| 7.10 | Krug 8 | Eight principles verbatim | W1 | 33 | A3 | High | |
| 7.11 | Norman 7 | Presented as **seven questions**, not named stages | W1 | 32 | A3 | High | Do not substitute canonical stage names |
| 7.12 | Natural Mapping | "A natural arrangement of controls and their outcomes to the real world" | W1 | 34 | A3 | High | Cooktop-knob example |
| 7.13 | Perceived Affordances | "The actions the user perceives as being possible based on how an object is presented" | W1 | 34 | A3 | High | Chair-in-a-burning-room example |
| 7.14 | Placement in process | "How will it perform in a heuristics analysis?" under current-state analysis | Week 10 | 6 | A1 | High | Makes it a Discover-stage, participant-free method |
| 7.15 | P&P task wording | "Perform a heuristic analysis on a website or app that you use regularly using the 5 criteria below" | `01 UX Intro - Tutorial Preparation T1 2026.pdf` | 1 | A4 | High | Five heuristics identical to s35 |
| 7.16 | 5-step finding structure | Heuristic → evidence → user impact → business impact → recommendation | — | — | SUP | — | Derived from the two-column slide format; business-impact step is this guide's addition |

---

## 8. Design principles

| # | Topic | Claim / definition | Source file | Page | Type | Conf. | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8.1 | **The five principles** | 1. Perceivable and predictable · 2. Consistent and conventional · 3. Use natural affordances · 4. Provide feedback · 5. Provide constraints | `04 Design Principles  Ideation…T2 2026.pdf` | 8 | A3 | High | Identical on tutorial prep p1. Verbs are part of the names |
| 8.2 | "So what?" column | Five user consequences, verbatim | Week 10 / W5 | 28 / 54 | A1 | High | |
| 8.3 | Negative framings | "Design is not perceivable and predictable" (etc.) | Week 10 / W5 | 29 / 55 | A1 | High | |
| 8.4 | Components of principle 1 | Chunking · Field labels · Alignment · Call to action · Visual hierarchy | W4 | 9 | A3 | High | |
| 8.5 | Consistency vs convention | "making elements uniform" vs "models that govern the look and feel" | W4 | 10 | A3 | High | |
| 8.6 | Three consistency types | Visual · Functional · Following platform conventions | W4 | 16 | A3 | High | |
| 8.7 | Affordance | "a property or feature of an object which presents a prompt on what can be done with the object" | W4 | 11 | A3 | High | **"Signifier" never appears in this deck** |
| 8.8 | Feedback qualities | Obvious · Visible · Understandable | W4 | 12 | A3 | High | |
| 8.9 | Constraints | "limit the number of choices a user can choose to act upon" | W4 | 13 | A3 | High | |
| 8.10 | Page elements | Textbox · Checkbox · Radio buttons · Dropdown · Buttons · Headings | W4 | 15 | A3 | High | "The Lego blocks of the interface" |
| 8.11 | Chunking | Origin, 7±2, and the how | W4 | 23 | A3 | High | Cited "NNG (2018)" on slide |
| 8.12 | Anchoring | "People tend to focus on a single, initial piece of information…" | W4 | 22 | A3 | High | Mailchimp example |
| 8.13 | Visual hierarchy | Definition verbatim | W4 | 24 | A3 | High | |
| 8.14 | **Two Viewing Patterns** | Slide title is "Two Viewing Patterns"; **the patterns are not named on the slide** | W4 | 26 | A3 | High | Guide flags F/Z-pattern as external terminology |
| 8.15 | Label alignment | Four rules; Do/Don't | W4 | 27 | A3 | High | Cited "UX Movement - Form Scanning (2000)" |
| 8.16 | Error handling | 4 anti-patterns; 5 best practices; help/prevent lists | W4 | 28, 29, 30 | A3 | High | Full message text quoted in guide |
| 8.17 | CTA checklist | Six items including "Be large enough to click (Fitts Law)" | W4 | 31 | A3 | High | |
| 8.18 | Three named laws | Hicks Law · Jakob's Law of the Internet User Experience · Fitts Law | W4 | 32 | A3 | High | **No apostrophes on Hicks/Fitts** |
| 8.19 | Information architecture | "the way we arrange the parts of something to make it understandable"; Findable/Usable/Clear; 7-step how-to | W4 | 34 | A3 | High | |
| 8.20 | Navigation | "It is information architecture made tangible"; five types | W4 | 35, 38 | A3 | High | |
| 8.21 | Ideation techniques | Crazy 8s · Parallel worlds · How Might We's | W4 | 42 | A3 | High | Spelling variant "How Might Wes" at s4 / tut prep p2 |
| 8.22 | Group ideation rules | Six rules (defer judgement etc.) | W4 | 41 | A3 | High | |
| 8.23 | Design patterns / systems | Listed on the agenda (s4) but **no slides exist** in the deck | W4 | 4, 39–40 | A3 | High | Convenient: both are exam-excluded |
| 8.24 | P&P task wording | "Provide examples of the 5 Design Principles in the real world using everyday objects" | `04 …Tutorial Preparation T1 2026.pdf` | 1 | A4 | High | |

---

## 9. Data and measurement

| # | Topic | Claim / definition | Source file | Page | Type | Conf. | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9.1 | Quant definition | "Anything that can be represented as a number" | W7 | 42 | A3 | High | |
| 9.2 | Qual definition | "Anything that can't be represented as a number" | W7 | 42 | A3 | High | |
| 9.3 | Week 7 metrics | Number of clicks · Time spent before completing · Success rate · Ease of use · User satisfaction | W7 | 42 | A3 | High | **Week 7 does NOT use "direct/indirect success" or "confidence rating"** |
| 9.4 | Week 10 metrics | Direct / indirect success · Ratings / scales · Time to complete | Week 10 | 30 | A1 | High | |
| 9.5 | Week 5 validators | Completion rate · Click paths · Heat maps (quant); Open ended feedback (qual) | W5 | 47 | A3 | High | |
| 9.6 | Direct/indirect/failure | 86.7% / 11.7% / 1.7%; confidence 4.8/5 | W5 | 48 | A3 | High | NRMA industry example |
| 9.7 | Interpretation structure | "high success rate due to… and therefore…" / "low success rate due to… therefore…" | Week 10 | 30 | A1 | High | The answer template |
| 9.8 | Validated vs iterate | "Our design has been validated!" / "We need to iterate to improve!" | W5 | 49 | A3 | High | Plus "😀 No action required" / "💡 Iterate…" tags |
| 9.9 | Capturing feedback | Context · Stated response · Observed response · Inferred response | W7 | 43 | A3 | High | Asterisk convention preserved |
| 9.10 | Behavioural/attitudinal labels | Mapping of the four feedback types to evidence classes | — | — | SUP | — | **This guide's addition**, labelled as supplementary |
| 9.11 | Metric→question table | Which metric answers which research question | — | — | SUP | — | Compiled from W5 s48–49 and W7 s49–51 interpretation; generalisations marked |
| 9.12 | Objective measurement | "required to provide more confidence to stakeholders… benchmarked against previous iterations, or competitors" | W7 | 48 | A3 | High | |

---

## 10. Testing, hypotheses, prototypes

| # | Topic | Claim / definition | Source file | Page | Type | Conf. | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10.1 | Concept testing | "happens at earlier stages… refine and remove ideas quickly" | W7 | 7, 9 | A3 | High | |
| 10.2 | Usability testing | "more rigorous… closer to the final completion of development" | W7 | 12 | A3 | High | s7 says "nearer", s12 says "closer" — both reproduced |
| 10.3 | Core elements | Facilitator · Tasks · Participant, with definitions | W7 | 12 | A3 | High | |
| 10.4 | Concept-test artefacts | Wireframes/mock-ups · Early prototypes · **Storyboards** · **Service blueprints** | W7 | 10 | A3 | High | Cross-links three examinable topics |
| 10.5 | Moderated/unmoderated | Definitions, activity lists, tool lists | W7 | 14 | A3 | High | Slide has no printed title |
| 10.6 | UNSW approved methods | Concept testing · Service staging / role-play · Guerrilla testing | W7 | 24 | A3 | High | Only this box carries a green tick |
| 10.7 | **Hypothesis recipe** | "We believe that [issue] / So if we [change this variable] / We will see [predict the outcome]" | W7 | 22 | A3 | High | |
| 10.8 | Good hypothesis | Makes a prediction · Testable · Simple and clear · Specific | W7 | 22 | A3 | High | |
| 10.9 | Bad hypothesis | Untestable · Vague · Non-directional · Non-existent | W7 | 22 | A3 | High | |
| 10.10 | Worked hypotheses | Weak (filters) and strong (mega-menu, "in less than 10 seconds") | W7 | 23 | A3 | High | |
| 10.11 | Task criteria | Realistic · Actionable · Not leading | W7 | 32 | A3 | High | |
| 10.12 | Task prioritisation | Task Type (Critical/Problematic/Typical/Infrequent) × Testing Priority (Must/Should/If time/Not testable) | W7 | 33 | A3 | High | **Matrix on the slide is blank** — the labels are the content |
| 10.13 | Briefing script | Five statements including think-aloud | W7 | 28 | A3 | High | Slide titled "Creating a test plan" but it is a **script**, not a document structure |
| 10.14 | 8 Rules | Eight moderator rules with scripted wording in 5 and 6 | W7 | 37 | A3 | High | |
| 10.15 | Bias | Five tips; four named biases | W7 | 39 | A3 | Medium | **Biases are named only — no definitions on the slide** |
| 10.16 | Three-column planning | Hypothesis → Research questions → Measuring usability | W7 | 29, 49, 50, 51 | A3 | High | Three worked rows |
| 10.17 | Test scenario requirements | Hypothesis ×1 · Research questions ×3 min · Measures ×2 min | Individual Assignment | 4 | A2 | High | Plus "incorrect isn't necessarily a bad thing" |
| 10.18 | Research-question types | Task-based · Probe · Rating (+ A/B) | `tut transcript wk8.txt` | — | A5 | Medium | Auto-transcript; wording lightly cleaned |
| 10.19 | Tutor hypothesis rules | Problem from findings · specific & novel feature · measurable prediction · no test required yet | same | — | A5 | Medium | Same caveat |
| 10.20 | Prototype definition | "an early model created to test a concept or process" | W5 | 35 | A3 | High | Slide contains "evaluate the any assumptions" [sic] |
| 10.21 | Ways to prototype | Concept statement · Existing stimulus · Low-fi prototype · Physical models · Hi-fi interactive prototype | W5 | 37 | A3 | High | |
| 10.22 | Service staging | "Using Lego is a great way of prototyping a service or physical space" | W5 | 38 | A3 | High | Also a UNSW-approved test method |
| 10.23 | Decision language | "Go / no go / refactor decision from test results" | W7 | 7 | A3 | Medium | **Nearest equivalent to retain/revise/reject — the course never uses those words** |

---

## 11. Wireframes and storyboards

| # | Topic | Claim / definition | Source file | Page | Type | Conf. | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11.1 | Wireframe definition | "a stripped-down visual map without any graphic treatment" | W5 | 21 | A3 | High | |
| 11.2 | Wireframe function | "communicating the content and layout… serving as a blueprint" | W5 | 19 | A3 | High | |
| 11.3 | **Wireframe fidelity** | s19 "medium to high fidelity" vs s8 "low to medium to high" vs s26 "Low / Mid / High" | W5 | 8, 19, 26 | A3 | **Low** | **Source conflict.** Guide states the range and flags s19 |
| 11.4 | Six things communicated | Design concept/intent · Hierarchy · Functionality · Relative proportions · Page layout · Interaction options | W5 | 20 | A3 | High | |
| 11.5 | Fidelity ladder | Simple block sketch → Detailed wireframes → High fidelity wireframes (→ Mock ups) | W5 | 22, 33 | A3 | High | s22 is the 3-rung wireframe subset; s33 the full 4-rung |
| 11.6 | Per-level characteristics | Placeholders (X for images, lines for text), grid, annotations, and "Best Used" | W5 | 29, 30, 31 | A3 | High | |
| 11.7 | Sketch/wireframe/prototype | 7-attribute comparison table, all 21 cells | W5 | 26 | A3 | High | |
| 11.8 | Artefact-to-learning | Concept drawing → Live site, what each teaches | W5 | 27 | A3 | High | |
| 11.9 | Wireframing considerations | Design for your audience · Keep fidelity in mind · Stay consistent · Don't skip sketching! | W5 | 28 | A3 | High | |
| 11.10 | Flow ladder | User goal (goal/story) → Task flow (action) → Wireflow (component) → User Flow (interaction) | W5 | 8 | A3 | High | |
| 11.11 | Wireflow definition | "A combination of wireframes and flowcharts…" | W5 | 13 | A3 | High | |
| 11.12 | Wireflow TLDR + when | Four bullets + four conditions where it beats a user flow | W5 | 11 | A3 | High | |
| 11.13 | Four wireflow properties | Illustrates movement · Sequential · Helps plan · Shows connection | W5 | 12 | A3 | High | |
| 11.14 | Annotation example | Seven numbered annotations on an events app | W5 | 31 | A3 | High | Only worked annotation in the deck |
| 11.15 | Exam drawing checklist | Seven moves | — | — | SUP | — | Compiled from W5 s15, 20, 28, 29, 31; labelled revision guidance |
| 11.16 | **Storyboard attribution** | The course's storyboard material is taught in the **Week 4 Lecture, slides 43–50** — that block is the primary source. The **Week 7 Lecture, slide 10** is the supporting application: it lists storyboards among the artefacts used for concept testing. The word "storyboard" does not appear in the 57-page Week 5 deck (its section 05.5 is "Storytelling", a different topic), so no storyboard claim in this pack is attributed to Week 5 | W4 / W7 | 43–50 / 10 | A3 | High | Verified by full-text search of all three decks |
| 11.17 | Storyboard What/Why/Who/How | Four-part definition verbatim | W4 | 43 | A3 | High | Slide sentence is grammatically broken [sic] |
| 11.18 | Why storyboards matter | Four reasons | W4 | 43 | A3 | High | |
| 11.19 | Three-act structure | Beginning = Problem; Middle = Objective/Goal/Action; End = Outcome | W4 | 44 | A3 | High | |
| 11.20 | Eight elements | Signs · Speech Bubbles · Office Furniture · Characters · Arrows · Devices · Transportation Elements · Backgrounds | W4 | 45 | A3 | High | One-line glosses in guide marked SUP |
| 11.21 | Three principles | Stay Authentic · Keep it Simple · Highlight Emotion | W4 | 46 | A3 | High | |
| 11.22 | Heartline example | Five-beat narrative; 11-panel illustrated version | W4 | 47, 49 | A3 | High | |
| 11.23 | Blank template | 3×3 grid with Title/Scene/Page fields and caption lines | W4 | 48 | A3 | High | Guide's 6-frame version marked as a supplementary structure |
| 11.24 | Planning canvas | Audience · Key message · Story · Places · Campaign and onboarding · Goals · Measuring success | W4 | 50 | A3 | High | |

---

## 12. Service Design 5Ps and blueprint

| # | Topic | Claim / definition | Source file | Page | Type | Conf. | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12.1 | **The 5Ps** | People · Processes · Places · Products · Performance, each with its one-sentence definition | `08 SD Intro…T1 2026.pdf` | 39 | A3 | High | |
| 12.2 | 5Ps purpose | "map out the territory of the reimagined service"; "'lovable' service experience"; "Get a sense of the boundaries of the ecosystem" | W8 | 38 | A3 | High | |
| 12.3 | 5Ps placement | "The 5Ps sits within the **Discover** stage of the Double Diamond" | W8 | 38 | A3 | High | Reinforced visually at s37 |
| 12.4 | People components | Customers & users · Employees (**Front of House** / **Back of House**) · Partners | W8 | 40 | A3 | High | **Not frontstage/backstage** |
| 12.5 | Processes components | Operations · Systems | W8 | 41 | A3 | High | |
| 12.6 | Places components | Touchpoints · Workspaces · In between | W8 | 42 | A3 | High | |
| 12.7 | Products components | Digital · Analog · Spatial | W8 | 43 | A3 | High | American "Analog" preserved |
| 12.8 | Performance expanded | "the least tangible and sits across all of the 5 P's… doesn't have to be measured in numbers" | W8 | 44 | A3 | High | |
| 12.9 | **The other 5 P-words** | Project brief headings: Purpose · Performance · People · Place · Problems | W8 | 35 | A3 | High | **Never called "the 5Ps" on the slide.** Flagged as a trap |
| 12.10 | Scoping | Definition; kick-off workshop; PEST; funnel of scope | W8 | 29, 30 | A3 | High | |
| 12.11 | Areas of focus | Six scoping prompts | W8 | 31 | A3 | High | |
| 12.12 | Eight client questions | Verbatim | W8 | 32 | A3 | High | |
| 12.13 | Stakeholder rings | CORE TEAM · INVOLVED STAKEHOLDERS · INFORMED STAKEHOLDERS | W8 | 33 | A3 | High | |
| 12.14 | **Blueprint components** | Physical evidence (touchpoints) · Customer actions · Front stage actions · Back stage actions · Support processes | `09 Service Blueprinting - Tutorial Preparation T1 2026.pdf` | 1 | A4 | High | The P&P task's wording. Two words, no hyphen. The lecture deck writes them as one word — see 12.14b |
| 12.14b | **Blueprint lane naming variants** | Lecture s34–35: Frontstage actions / Backstage actions (one word). Lecture s16 (NN/g): Customer actions · Touchpoints · Frontstage staff · Backstage staff · Support processes. Lecture s7–8 (NN/g): Evidence · Customer journey · Frontstage (employee actions, technology) · Backstage actions · Support processes | `09 Service Blueprinting - Lecture Slides T2 2026.pdf` | 7, 8, 16, 34, 35 | A3 | High | Four namings, all course content. Guide reconciles them in a table and recommends the tutorial-prep wording |
| 12.15 | Blueprint definition | "A blueprint is an **operational tool** that visualizes the components of a service in **enough detail to analyze, implement, and maintain it**" | `09 Service Blueprinting - Lecture Slides T2 2026.pdf` | 7 | A3 | High | Replaces the earlier transcript-only definition |
| 12.15b | Three characteristics | Customer focused, but system driven · Orchestration · Highlights dependencies | same | 8 | A3 | High | |
| 12.15c | Origin | "Originally proposed by **Lynn Shostack (1984)**"; codified service delivery | same | 9 | A3 | High | Reproduces the original "Blueprint for a Corner Shoeshine" |
| 12.16 | Blueprint structure | Time (reads left to right) · Experience stages · Swim lanes · Line of visibility · Line of interaction · **Service moments** (vertical columns) | same | 17 | A3 | High | Includes the instruction to plot backstage work **at the moment it starts** |
| 12.17 | Line of visibility | "the division between frontstage and backstage is called the Line of Visibility. The elements you choose to show to your customer (and when) can have a profound impact on the experience" | same | 17, 34 | A3 | High | Corroborated by the tutor's spoken account (`新录音 92.txt` line 409) |
| 12.17b | Line of interaction | "a line between **what customers can and cannot directly interact with**" | same | 17, 34 | A3 | High | |
| 12.18 | **Line of internal interaction** | Labelled on the NN/g reference diagram and on the "Zoomed in" worked blueprint (printed as "INTERNAL INTERACTION") | same | 7, 8, 23 | A3 | High | **Corrects an earlier claim in this pack.** It IS course content — all three lines are named in the Week 9 lecture deck. The deck gives no separate prose definition, and the blank template on s34–35 draws only two lines; that is a **presentation variation inside the course's own deck**, not evidence that the third line is external. Both facts are stated in the guide |
| 12.19 | Blueprint purpose | Current state: align on the current service state, capture operational knowledge, identify opportunities and breakdowns. Future state: communicate change, plan touchpoints, capture operational needs, develop roadmaps, create planning documents | same | 12, 13 | A3 | High | Each with an explicit benefits list |
| 12.19b | Why blueprint | "Digital is complex"; three key ways — **To visualize · To align · To prototype** | same | 11 | A3 | High | |
| 12.19c | Lane definitions | Customer actions ("physical or mental actions") · Touchpoints ("medium of exchange"; **one touchpoint per service moment**) · Staff actions (**name the actor**) · Support processes ("tools and systems necessary to support the staff and the service moment") | same | 16 | A3 | High | The two bolded instructions are directly citable marks |
| 12.19d | Six-step build process | Prepare supplies · Gather partners · **Take a first pass** (customer actions first — "This will form the backbone of the blueprint") · Fill in (down each moment, then across) · Direct attention · Share it | same | 18 | A3 | High | |
| 12.19e | Zoom and fidelity | Zoom: not too much detail · be helpful · common path; helicopter view vs microscopic. Fidelity: start low; sticky notes → spreadsheets → printed posters | same | 20, 21, 22 | A3 | High | |
| 12.19f | The reality | Services are big · multiple blueprints · **start with the happy path** | same | 25 | A3 | High | |
| 12.19g | Plotting the flow | Direction (arrows) · Gap identification · Top Tip | same | 26 | A3 | High | Confirms the tutor's "use arrows" correction |
| 12.19h | The bottlenecks | Analysing performance · Add new 'lenses' · Create focus; plus the additional-data list (key moments, unsupported/missing elements, service breakdowns, satisfaction metrics, opportunity areas, customer and staff pain points, moments of delight, duration) | same | 27 | A3 | High | Bridges to Chapter 6 |
| 12.19i | Using a blueprint | 1 Prototyping ("a blueprint is a prototype"; **service storming**) · 2 Supporting a vision (storyboards; blueprint to roadmap) · 3 Making it reusable (service patterns) | same | 29, 30, 32 | A3 | High | s32 references design patterns — an excluded topic; flagged |
| 12.19j | Service vision → implementation | Service artifacts → Experience stories → Blueprint → Roadmap | same | 31 | A3 | High | |
| 12.19k | Worked example + template | Restaurant guest across five moments; blank FigJam template | same | 34, 35 | A3 | High | The template draws **two** lines |
| 12.19l | **Service design principles (6)** | Human Centered · Collaborative · Iterative · Sequenced · Real · Holistic | same | 37 | A3 | High | Section 09.5 is "SD principles & capabilities". **Capabilities are excluded; principles are not.** Flagged as "not confirmed as a standalone exam topic" |
| 12.19m | Service design core capabilities (9) | Empathy · Communication · Facilitation · Systems thinking · Synthesis · Future visioning · Storytelling · Visualisation · Making | same | 39 | A3 | High | **Explicitly excluded from the exam.** Listed for recognition only |
| 12.20 | Frontstage vs backstage | "At the core of service design and service blueprints is the concept of frontstage and backstage… the parts of the service that will be visible or invisible to the customer" | same | 15 | A3 | High | Restaurant example |
| 12.21 | Journey stage names | Set A: appointment booking → arrival → receiving treatment → post treatment. Set B: arrival → waiting → receiving treatment → after treatment | same | lines 721, 835 | A5 | Medium | Tutor corrected all four groups on using stages not steps |
| 12.22 | Physical evidence checklist | digital forms, confirmation emails, SMS, signage, wristbands, medical equipment, treatment/examination tables, staff uniforms, documents and paperwork, history forms | same | line 536 | A5 | Medium | Generated live in class |
| 12.23 | Detail argument | "make it detail enough so we can find where things do not go well" + the suburb comparison | same | lines 536, 737 | A5 | Medium | |
| 12.24 | Absence as signal | "the lack of which could also be a problem… signals the need for disruption" | same | line 787 | A5 | Medium | |
| 12.25 | Arrows instruction | "use an arrows instead of the line to connect this so it shows like whom to whom" | same | line 721 | A5 | Medium | |
| 12.26 | Exam warning | "in the exam, the final exam, this is going to be part of the thing. That can be asked" | same | line 201 | A5 | Medium | Basis for prioritising this chapter |
| 12.27 | Back stage vs support process | Worked distinction (nurse records observations vs the record system itself) | `Preparation Forum.docx` | — | S1 | Medium | **Student-authored**, labelled in guide; consistent with component definitions |
| 12.28 | Week 9 lecture deck | 40 slides, **T2 2026** — present and now the primary source for Chapter 14 | `09 Service Blueprinting - Lecture Slides T2 2026.pdf` | all | A3 | High | Added after the first build of this pack; Chapter 14 was rewritten around it |
| 12.29 | Case study authorship | Thoughtworks article by Zichuan Xiong and Brandon Fleisher, 4 Feb 2022 | `08/09 - Tutorial case study.pdf` | 1 | A4 | High | **Not course-authored.** Its five principles are not the course's |

---

## 13. Supplementary content — everything this guide added

Every row below is content **not stated in the course files**. Each is labelled inside the guide as *"supplementary explanation, not explicitly stated in the course files"*, *"revision guidance"*, or *"this guide's layout choice"*.

| # | What was added | Where | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| 13.1 | Suggested minutes per mark (1.2 min/mark) | Ch. 0 | Arithmetic from the published mark split; no course timing scheme exists |
| 13.2 | Reading-time checklist | Ch. 0 | Practical guidance; no course equivalent |
| 13.3 | One-line explanations under primary/secondary research | Ch. 3 | The slide lists the methods without explaining the distinction |
| 13.4 | Strengths/limitations columns in the method matrix | Ch. 4 | Course states some; generalisations marked in the table note |
| 13.5 | "Test to apply" column for blueprint lanes | Ch. 14 | Derived from how the tutor and student example separate the lanes |
| 13.6 | Diagnostic questions per P | Ch. 13 | Converts definitions into an applicable device; explicitly marked not a course framework |
| 13.7 | Worked GP-clinic 5Ps and blueprint | Ch. 13, 14 | Assembled from the tutor's checklist and the Week 9 options; marked as a worked example |
| 13.8 | Six-frame storyboard template contents | Ch. 12 | The course's template is unlabelled; frame contents marked supplementary |
| 13.9 | Behavioural/attitudinal evidence classes | Ch. 9 | Makes the four feedback types usable for interpretation questions |
| 13.10 | Metric → research question mapping | Ch. 9 | Compiled from how the course interprets its own results |
| 13.11 | Command-verb answer structures | Ch. 18 | No official rubric exists; derived from what the practice questions ask for |
| 13.12 | Everyday-alternative examples column | Ch. 16 | So the student is not forced to repeat the lecturer's examples |
| 13.13 | Artefact "Answers" row and decision tree | Ch. 15 | Fast disambiguation device under exam pressure |
| 13.14 | 19 practice questions written for this guide | Ch. 17 | The chapter's practice bank is **22 questions in total: the 3 printed on the Week 10 slides, plus 19 written for this guide**. The 19 are built on the official problem spaces and course content, and are labelled as written for this guide — they are not past papers |
| 13.15 | All original SVG diagrams | throughout | Each captioned with the slides its content comes from, and any layout choice flagged |

---

## 14. Claims deliberately NOT made

This table lists substitutions the guide avoids because they contradict the course materials. It is a statement of the **current** evidence position; corrections made during earlier revisions of this pack are recorded in `04_ACCURACY_AND_SCOPE_AUDIT.md` §14, not here.

> **Blueprint lines — settled.** All three lines are named in the **Week 9 lecture deck** (slides 7, 8, 23): *line of interaction*, *line of visibility* and *line of internal interaction*. Some templates in the same deck (s34–35) draw only two. That variation is **internal to the course materials** and is not a reason to treat any line as external. **No blueprint line should be labelled as the student’s own addition.** See rows 12.17–12.18 above for the slide-level provenance.

| Claim avoided | Why |
|---|---|
| "The five heuristics are Nielsen's" | Contradicts W1 s35's explicit three-author attribution |
| "Nielsen recommends 5 test users" | W7 s35 attributes it to Jeff Sauro of MeasuringU |
| "The course teaches the F-pattern and Z-pattern" | W4 s26 prints only "Two Viewing Patterns" |
| "Affordances vs signifiers" | "Signifier" appears nowhere in the Week 4 deck |
| "Front stage / back stage employees" in a 5Ps answer | W8 s40 says Front of House / Back of House |
| "Retain / revise / reject" as the course's decision framework | Not used; nearest is "Go / no go / refactor" (W7 s7) |
| "Task completion rate" / "time to complete" as Week 7 terms | W7 s42 says "Success rate" and "Time spent before completing" |
| The Thoughtworks five principles as course principles | Set reading, not course-authored |
| Any statement about how the exam will be marked | No marking criteria are released (W10 s15) |
| Specific word counts per mark band | The course publishes none |


---

## 15. Claims that depend on the lecture and tutorial transcripts

Every row here rests on a **spoken** source, not on a printed slide. All are tier **A5**: supporting sources that clarify or extend the slides. None of them overrides the Week 10 slides on exam scope or format, an official brief, or a clearly printed lecture slide.

**Locator convention.** `WEEK10\tut transcript raw.txt` carries `[MM:SS]` timestamps and is cited by timestamp. The seven files in `lecture transcript\` have **no timestamps** and, in several cases, no usable line structure — `wk2.txt` is a single 88,330-character line — so those are cited by **speaker label plus an anchor phrase** that can be searched for directly. Every quotation below was verified by literal string search against its file before being written into the guide.

| # | Claim | Where it is used | File | Locator | Speaker | Conf. | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15.1 | **Two sub-parts require a hand-drawn answer, and both are inside Question 3** | Ch. 0; sprint §A | `lecture transcript\wk10.txt` | anchors "two questions that you might need to sketch"; "in regard to your drawing questions" | SPEAKER 0 — the lecturer | High | The slides give the mark split only. The lecturer's on-screen counting stumbles ("21 of", "12345") are reproduced rather than tidied; the recoverable claim is *two of the five* |
| 15.1b | **Students were expected to receive four sheets of paper** for the drawn sub-parts — stated tentatively | Ch. 0; sprint §A | `lecture transcript\wk10.txt` | anchor "each one of you will be given 4 pieces of paper" | SPEAKER 0 — the lecturer | Medium | **Hedged in the source.** The lecturer says "So you'll be given, **I think** each one of you will be given 4 pieces of paper". The guide presents four sheets as what students were *expected* to receive, not as a confirmed fact. The *location* of the two drawn sub-parts (row 15.1) is stated without hedging and is graded High |
| 15.2 | The artefact is **drawn on paper, photographed and uploaded**; it is a **sub-question inside the case study** | Ch. 0; sprint §A | `WEEK10\tut transcript raw.txt` | [29:51]–[30:08] | Unlabelled; the tutor, from context | High | The file has no speaker labels; he is identified as the tutor because he runs the session and critiques posted answers |
| 15.3 | The **two hours includes** answering, drawing and uploading | Ch. 0; sprint §A | `WEEK10\tut transcript raw.txt` | [22:55]–[23:09] | Unlabelled; the tutor | High | |
| 15.4 | Theoretical questions **may be scenario-framed**; the case study is "a problem space looking thing" | Ch. 0; sprint §A | `lecture transcript\wk10.txt` | anchor "a combination of theoretical questions" | SPEAKER 0 — the lecturer | Medium | The lecturer says a "**combination of** theoretical questions" and gives one illustrative scenario framing, so the guide says theoretical questions **may** be scenario-framed rather than asserting that all are |
| 15.5 | **Pen vs pencil** — the slide prefers a pen; the tutor prefers a pencil for erasability, then concludes it "doesn't really matter that much" provided the drawing is clear | Ch. 0; sprint §G | `WEEK10\tut transcript raw.txt` | [27:53]–[29:40] | Unlabelled; the tutor | High | **A genuine conflict with a printed slide**, recorded in `04_ACCURACY_AND_SCOPE_AUDIT.md` §7 row 15 |
| 15.6 | **Bullet points are welcome; essay style is not expected**; the tutor describes his marking as point-based against criteria | Sprint §D | `WEEK10\tut transcript raw.txt` | [31:42]–[32:19] | Unlabelled; the tutor, answering a student | High | ASR: "essay ties" = essay types; "bull reports" = bullet points; "remark" = we mark. Presented as **how to present an answer**, not as a published rubric — Week 10 s15 still says no marking criteria are provided |
| 15.7 | **An interview transcript is a source, not a data type** | Ch. 9; sprint topic 12 | `WEEK10\tut transcript raw.txt` | [53:01]–[53:36] | Unlabelled; the tutor, critiquing a posted answer | High | Corrects a specific student answer to Week 10 Practice Q3 |
| 15.8 | **Open-ended ≠ qualitative**; closed-ended can be quantitative or categorical | Ch. 9; sprint topic 12 | `WEEK10\tut transcript raw.txt` | [54:45]–[55:00] | Unlabelled; the tutor in dialogue with a student | Medium | ASR: "add master" = add their own answer; "polymers" ≈ quantitative. The argument is unambiguous; neither word is course terminology |
| 15.9 | **The 5Ps are applied to one specific service, never to a whole industry or sector** | Ch. 13; sprint topic 10 | `WEEK10\tut transcript raw.txt` | [1:50:41]–[1:51:16] | Unlabelled; the tutor | High | ASR: "healthy analysis" = healthcare; "surveys" = services. Both recoverable from the surrounding sentences |
| 15.10 | **All four Cs sit inside the first diamond only** — Collect/Choose under Discover, Create/Commit under Define | Ch. 5; sprint topic 02 | `lecture transcript\wk4.txt` | anchor "they are sitting literally only within this double diamond" | SPEAKER 0 — the lecturer | High | Stated while marking a past student submission wrong in class. Corroborated in `wk2.txt` ("They are not designer. You are the designer, don't ask them to do your job") |
| 15.11 | **The lecturer names the "F pattern" aloud**; the second viewing pattern's name is not recoverable | Ch. 8, Ch. 19; sprint topic 08, §G | `lecture transcript\wk4.txt` | anchor "one is F pattern and one is that" | SPEAKER 0 — the lecturer | High | **Corrects this pack's earlier guidance**, which treated both names as outside terminology. The transcript renders the second as "one is that, uh, pattern" — so "Z pattern" remains unconfirmed by any source in this folder |
| 15.12 | The Week 9 **elements slide lists the lanes in a flipped order**; the lecturer corrects it verbally and downgrades its importance | Ch. 14 | `lecture transcript\wk9.txt` | anchor "so I know that order is flipped" | SPEAKER 0 — the lecturer | Medium | Recorded because it explains an apparent inconsistency between the slide and the canonical lane order |

**Deliberately not used.** 111 candidate passages were extracted from the eight transcripts and independently checked; **81 were rejected**. The large majority were rejected because the guide already made the point from the slides. A smaller number were rejected because the passage was too garbled to carry a determinate meaning, or because its framing could not be supported. The rejections, and the transcript-quality limitations behind them, are recorded in `04_ACCURACY_AND_SCOPE_AUDIT.md` §15.

---

*Companion files: `00_FILE_INVENTORY.md`, `02_INFS3700_Final_Exam_Revision_EN.html`, `03_INFS3700_Final_Exam_Revision_CN.html`, `04_ACCURACY_AND_SCOPE_AUDIT.md`, `05_INFS3700_Exam_Sprint_Guide_EN.html`, `06_INFS3700_Exam_Sprint_Guide_CN.html`.*