Task 4 / Minor A4 Detailed Marking Key: Smart Home Privacy, Security and Supply Chain Audit
Marking setup
- Raw mark: 50
- Course weighting: 15%
- Assessment window: Term 4 Weeks 1-3
- Main evidence: student audit report and supporting tables/diagrams
- Marking principle: award marks for applied reasoning connected to the Simpsons House or an approved smart home case study.
Criterion 1: System overview, data map and digital footprint (10 marks)
| Marks | Evidence standard |
|---|---|
| 9-10 | Defines the system boundary clearly, names users/stakeholders, identifies app/controller/network/physical components, and maps current plus plausible future data movement. Explains digital footprint with realistic personal-information concerns. |
| 7-8 | Defines most components and users. Data movement is mostly clear. Digital footprint is relevant but may miss one important pathway or personal-information implication. |
| 5-6 | Provides a basic system overview. Data map is incomplete, partly generic or missing some important components. |
| 3-4 | Gives a brief description with weak connection to the actual smart home system. Digital footprint is mentioned but not explained. |
| 0-2 | Little usable evidence of system boundary, components, users or data movement. |
Criterion 1 evidence checks
- Component table or diagram is present.
- App/interface, controller/device, network and physical outputs are included.
- Student distinguishes current model data from possible real smart home data.
- Student avoids unnecessary private personal or home-network details.
Criterion 2: Australian Privacy Principles critique (10 marks)
| Marks | Evidence standard |
|---|---|
| 9-10 | Applies at least four APP ideas accurately to the system. Critique explains what users should know, what data should be minimised, how data should be protected, and how trust could improve. |
| 7-8 | Applies at least four APP ideas with mostly accurate links to the system. Some critique may need stronger depth or examples. |
| 5-6 | Describes APP ideas and partly applies them, but several points remain generic or copied. |
| 3-4 | Mentions APPs with limited accuracy or weak connection to the case study. |
| 0-2 | Little accurate APP understanding or application. |
Criterion 2 evidence checks
- APP ideas are treated as critique questions, not copied definitions only.
- Student links APP ideas to smart home data, user notice, collection, use/disclosure, security or access/correction.
- Student states at least one improvement that follows from the APP critique.
Criterion 3: Security and supply chain risk analysis (10 marks)
| Marks | Evidence standard |
|---|---|
| 9-10 | Identifies at least five realistic risks across user/security and supply chain categories. Likelihood, impact and priority ratings are justified with specific evidence or reasoning. |
| 7-8 | Identifies relevant risks, including at least two supply chain risks. Ratings are mostly logical, though reasons may be brief. |
| 5-6 | Identifies some relevant risks, but categories, ratings or supply chain links are incomplete. |
| 3-4 | Risk analysis is vague, relies on broad labels such as "hackers", or misses supply chain reasoning. |
| 0-2 | Little usable risk analysis. |
Criterion 3 evidence checks
- At least five risks are present.
- At least two risks involve users, configuration, access, unsafe assumptions or misuse.
- At least two risks involve software, libraries, firmware, cloud/app services, hardware components, CAD/printing or supplier documentation.
- Ratings include likelihood, impact and priority.
Criterion 4: Recommendations and justification (10 marks)
| Marks | Evidence standard |
|---|---|
| 9-10 | Gives at least five practical recommendations. Each recommendation links to a risk and explains why it reduces privacy, security, supply chain or trust concerns. Includes quick fixes and longer-term improvements. |
| 7-8 | Recommendations are relevant and mostly linked to risks. Justification is clear but may not fully prioritise actions. |
| 5-6 | Recommendations are present but general, incomplete or weakly connected to the risk matrix. |
| 3-4 | Recommendations are vague, unrealistic or difficult to implement. |
| 0-2 | Little useful recommendation evidence. |
Criterion 4 evidence checks
- Recommendations are actionable, not just "make it secure" or "protect privacy".
- At least one recommendation reduces digital footprint or improves notice/transparency.
- At least one recommendation reduces a supply chain or component risk.
- Highest-priority risks receive the strongest recommendations.
Criterion 5: Evidence, communication and conclusion (10 marks)
| Marks | Evidence standard |
|---|---|
| 9-10 | Report is logically structured, uses technical vocabulary accurately, cites reputable sources and gives a justified readiness conclusion. |
| 7-8 | Report is mostly clear with suitable sources and a relevant conclusion. |
| 5-6 | Report is understandable but uneven. Sources, structure or conclusion need more precision. |
| 3-4 | Report is hard to follow, under-evidenced or missing key sections. |
| 0-2 | Little usable report evidence, source support or conclusion. |
Criterion 5 evidence checks
- Report has clear headings or tables.
- Sources are official or reputable and are used to support claims.
- Conclusion states ready, partly ready or not ready.
- Conclusion names the highest priority improvement.
Common moderation limits
| Issue | Suggested cap unless other evidence is strong |
|---|---|
| Generic privacy essay with no smart home connection | Cap Criterion 1 at 4 and Criterion 3 at 4 |
| APP definitions copied without application | Cap Criterion 2 at 5 |
| No supply chain risk | Cap Criterion 3 at 6 |
| Recommendations not linked to risks | Cap Criterion 4 at 6 |
| No source list | Cap Criterion 5 at 7 |
| Unsafe disclosure of real personal/network details | Require redaction; do not reward unnecessary disclosure |
SEQTA mark entry suggestion
Enter five criteria out of 10 marks each. Use the short SEQTA rubric for LMS descriptors and keep this detailed marking key as teacher evidence.