Back to Assessments
Year 10 Digital Technologies

Task 4 / Minor A4 SEQTA Rubric: Smart Home Privacy, Security and Supply Chain Audit

Task 4 / Minor A4 SEQTA Rubric: Smart Home Privacy, Security and Supply Chain Audit

Use this concise version for SEQTA criterion descriptors. Keep the detailed marking key for teacher marking evidence.

Criterion 1: System overview, data map and digital footprint (10 marks)

  • 9-10: Clear system boundary, users, components and data movement. Digital footprint is explained with realistic smart home personal-information concerns.
  • 7-8: System and data flow are mostly clear. Digital-footprint points are relevant but need more detail.
  • 5-6: Basic system overview is present, but data movement or digital footprint is partly unclear.
  • 3-4: System description is brief, generic or missing key components.
  • 0-2: Little evidence of system overview, data map or digital-footprint understanding.

Criterion 2: Australian Privacy Principles critique (10 marks)

  • 9-10: APP ideas are accurately applied to the system with clear privacy critique and improvements.
  • 7-8: APP ideas are applied accurately with mostly clear system links.
  • 5-6: APPs are described and partly applied, but analysis is general or incomplete.
  • 3-4: APP references are limited, copied or weakly connected to the case study.
  • 0-2: Little accurate APP understanding or application.

Criterion 3: Security and supply chain risk analysis (10 marks)

  • 9-10: Realistic user, technical and supply chain vulnerabilities are identified. Ratings are justified and prioritised.
  • 7-8: Relevant risks are identified, including supply chain risks, with mostly clear ratings.
  • 5-6: Some relevant risks are identified, but ratings or supply chain links are limited.
  • 3-4: Risk analysis is vague, incomplete or mostly generic.
  • 0-2: Little evidence of privacy, security or supply chain risk analysis.

Criterion 4: Recommendations and justification (10 marks)

  • 9-10: Recommendations are practical, prioritised and directly linked to risks. Short-term and longer-term improvements are justified.
  • 7-8: Recommendations are relevant and mostly justified by the risk analysis.
  • 5-6: Recommendations are present but general, incomplete or weakly linked to risks.
  • 3-4: Recommendations are vague or difficult to apply.
  • 0-2: Little evidence of useful recommendations.

Criterion 5: Evidence, communication and conclusion (10 marks)

  • 9-10: Report is well structured, uses technical terms 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: Communication is understandable but uneven. Sources or conclusion are limited.
  • 3-4: Report is difficult to follow, under-evidenced or missing key sections.
  • 0-2: Little usable report evidence or source support.