#separator:Pipe
#html:true
#notetype:Basic
#deck:ASPICE 4.1::08 How assessors rate
#tags:aspice::lesson-08
#guid column:3
#columns:Front|Back|GUID
What does the assessment scope fix before anything is rated?|The boundaries of the organisational unit, the processes, the target capability level per process, and the process context. (Guidelines §1.2–1.3.4, pp. 27–32)|aspice-08-01
What is the process context, and what does it limit?|The factors bounding what is rated, such as which releases, which components and whether open source is included. Every PA rating “shall strictly remain within” it.|aspice-08-02
Who decides the evidence samples, and what path should they mark?|The assessor decides (the organisation may propose). Samples should “mark a clear path through the engineering lifecycle”. (Guidelines §1.4.3.1, pp. 37–38)|aspice-08-03
Name three kinds of content an assessor makes sure the samples cover.|Any three of: the most important functions; new, adapted, reused and platform content; safety- and security-relevant content; every coding and modelling approach used.|aspice-08-04
State the plausibility rule for work products.|Every work product is checked for its change history. One created shortly before the assessment is not considered unless there is a plausible reason, and its history should match its update cycle. (Guidelines §1.4.3.2, p. 38)|aspice-08-05
A two-year-old project's risk register was created nine days before the assessment and has one version. What does the assessor do?|Ignores it: created shortly before the assessment with no plausible reason.|aspice-08-06
A sub-project started twelve days before the assessment; its risk register dates from day three. What does the assessor do?|Accepts it: the late creation has a plausible reason.|aspice-08-07
Why is evidence that piles up as a side effect of the work the strongest kind?|Git history, tool timestamps and review records show the process was lived, not written up for the visit. (The course's inference from the plausibility rules.)|aspice-08-08
What does “Automotive SPICE must not be mistaken for a checklist” mean for how samples are read?|Samples are read for the right content, judged in context: what is appropriate depends on team size, product complexity and timeline. (Guidelines §1.4.3.3, p. 39)|aspice-08-09
SUP.9 is rated P. Should SUP.10's PA 1.1 be lowered because of it?|No (GEN.RL.1): a process is downrated only for its own weaknesses. Only BPs that refer to another process, i.e. consistency and traceability, carry weakness across. (Guidelines §1.4.2, pp. 36–37)|aspice-08-10
What is a process instance, and how is it rated?|One distinct way a process is performed within the scope (e.g. model-based vs hand-coded, two sites). Each is rated separately, then aggregated. (Guidelines §1.3.5, pp. 32–34)|aspice-08-11
Describe the recommended aggregation method, including the rounding rule.|Convert N0 P1 L2 F3, take the mean (or a weighted mean the report explains), round to the nearest integer with exact halves rounding up, convert back. (Guidelines §1.4.4, pp. 39–41)|aspice-08-12
Aggregate two instances: L and F.|F: (2 + 3) / 2 = 2.5, and exactly halfway rounds up.|aspice-08-13
Aggregate three instances: N, N, F.|P: (0 + 0 + 3) / 3 = 1.0. One excellent instance can't carry two absent ones.|aspice-08-14
Aggregate P, L, F weighted 70 % / 20 % / 10 %.|P: 0.7 + 0.4 + 0.3 = 1.4, which rounds down to 1.|aspice-08-15
What are the three patterns of rating rules?|“Shall not be downrated” · “shall be downrated” (at least one step) · “shall not be rated higher than”. (Guidelines §1.5, pp. 42–44)|aspice-08-16
Three rating rules each call for a downrate. Is the PA downrated three steps?|Not automatically: there is no “rating rule algebra”. (Guidelines §1.5, pp. 42–44)|aspice-08-17
What three things does a sound weakness statement contain?|What is missing or weak, the traceable objective evidence showing it, and the process risk it creates.|aspice-08-18
What happens to an assessment report that cites only rating rules instead of weakness statements?|It is invalid: every downrating needs the process risk “substantiated by traceable objective evidence”. (Guidelines §1.5.4.2, p. 44)|aspice-08-19
What must an assessor do to depart from a rating rule?|Document a compelling justification. (Guidelines §1.5, pp. 42–44)|aspice-08-20