{ "schema_version": 1, "version": "2.1", "title": "Report and Code Peer Review", "excel_url": "https://universiteittwente-my.sharepoint.com/:x:/g/personal/b_alvesbeirigo_utwente_nl/IQCCC6usyNSdQapV7GsfFcJvAeiElbuiDOp6G1EYrcZKNcM", "analytical_maximum": 50, "deduction_cap": 5, "scales": { "credit": { "Excellent": 1, "Good": 0.8, "Sufficient": 0.6, "Insufficient": 0.3, "Missing": 0 }, "deduction": { "Meets Requirements": 0, "Needs Correction": 0.5, "Substantial Problem": 1 }, "verification": { "Reproduced": null, "Reproduced After a Documented Correction": null, "Failed": null, "Not Checked": null } }, "rubrics": [ { "id": "as1-profiles", "sheet": "AS1 Profiles", "title": "WH-AS1 - Activity Profiles", "kind": "positive", "scale": "credit", "cumulative": false, "presentation_order": [ "Excellent", "Good", "Sufficient", "Insufficient", "Missing" ], "items": [ { "id": "AS1-AP1", "label": "Heatmap", "maximum_points": 1.5, "definition_ids": [ "as1-profiles-d1", "as1-profiles-d2", "as1-profiles-d3", "as1-profiles-d4", "as1-profiles-d5", "as1-profiles-d6" ] }, { "id": "AS1-AP2", "label": "Customer Order", "maximum_points": 1, "definition_ids": [ "as1-profiles-d1", "as1-profiles-d2", "as1-profiles-d3", "as1-profiles-d4", "as1-profiles-d5", "as1-profiles-d6" ] }, { "id": "AS1-AP3", "label": "Customer Order", "maximum_points": 1, "definition_ids": [ "as1-profiles-d1", "as1-profiles-d2", "as1-profiles-d3", "as1-profiles-d4", "as1-profiles-d5", "as1-profiles-d6" ] }, { "id": "AS1-AP4", "label": "Item Activity", "maximum_points": 1, "definition_ids": [ "as1-profiles-d1", "as1-profiles-d2", "as1-profiles-d3", "as1-profiles-d4", "as1-profiles-d5", "as1-profiles-d6" ] }, { "id": "AS1-AP5", "label": "Item Activity", "maximum_points": 1, "definition_ids": [ "as1-profiles-d1", "as1-profiles-d2", "as1-profiles-d3", "as1-profiles-d4", "as1-profiles-d5", "as1-profiles-d6" ] }, { "id": "AS1-AP6", "label": "Inventory", "maximum_points": 1, "definition_ids": [ "as1-profiles-d1", "as1-profiles-d2", "as1-profiles-d3", "as1-profiles-d4", "as1-profiles-d5", "as1-profiles-d6" ] }, { "id": "AS1-AP7", "label": "Inventory", "maximum_points": 1, "definition_ids": [ "as1-profiles-d1", "as1-profiles-d2", "as1-profiles-d3", "as1-profiles-d4", "as1-profiles-d5", "as1-profiles-d6" ] } ], "definitions": [ { "id": "as1-profiles-d1", "label": "Context and Scope", "explanation": "", "descriptors": { "Excellent": "States the period, dataset size, population and units. Defines the terms needed to interpret the profile in its caption.", "Good": "States the period, population and units. A minor omission in dataset size or a term definition does not affect interpretation.", "Sufficient": "Identifies the activity measured, its period and units. Limited population or dataset detail restricts interpretation of the scope.", "Insufficient": "The period, population or units are unclear or inconsistent, making the profile difficult to interpret reliably.", "Missing": "No context or scope is provided." } }, { "id": "as1-profiles-d2", "label": "Assumptions and Method", "explanation": "", "descriptors": { "Excellent": "Justifies the assumptions and documents the data preparation and grouping rules in the code. The explanation agrees with the implemented method.", "Good": "Uses plausible assumptions and describes the preparation and grouping rules. Minor gaps in justification or documentation do not affect the result.", "Sufficient": "The main preparation and grouping rules are identifiable and appropriate. Some assumptions or choices have limited justification.", "Insufficient": "Important assumptions or grouping rules are missing, unsuitable or inconsistent between the code and explanation.", "Missing": "No assessable method or assumptions are provided." } }, { "id": "as1-profiles-d3", "label": "Quantitative Precision", "explanation": "", "descriptors": { "Excellent": "Supports the findings with correct counts, percentages and summary statistics where relevant. Denominators are explicit and the reported values support each main claim.", "Good": "Quantifies the main findings correctly. A minor omission in a denominator or supporting statistic does not change the conclusion.", "Sufficient": "Reports enough correct numerical evidence to establish the main pattern. Some claims remain vague or lack supporting quantities.", "Insufficient": "Incorrect quantities, unclear denominators or mostly qualitative claims prevent the reader from establishing the main pattern.", "Missing": "No quantitative evidence is provided." } }, { "id": "as1-profiles-d4", "label": "Visualization Quality", "explanation": "", "descriptors": { "Excellent": "Uses an appropriate chart with clear labels, units, scales and numerical precision. A heatmap follows the physical layout. The treatment of outliers is explained where relevant.", "Good": "The chart correctly presents the pattern. Minor labeling or formatting omissions do not affect interpretation; spatial mapping and scales are correct.", "Sufficient": "The main pattern is readable and correctly represented. Some labels, numerical formatting or explanation of outliers are incomplete.", "Insufficient": "The chart type, spatial mapping, scale or labels distort the pattern or prevent a reliable interpretation.", "Missing": "No relevant visualization is provided." } }, { "id": "as1-profiles-d5", "label": "Insight and Improvement Strategy", "explanation": "", "descriptors": { "Excellent": "Explains the main pattern with numerical evidence and proposes a feasible warehouse action tied to the observed opportunity. Distinguishes what the data show from assumptions about causes or effects.", "Good": "Explains a supported operational finding and proposes a relevant action. Minor gaps remain in its quantitative justification or feasibility argument.", "Sufficient": "Identifies a finding supported by the profile and a plausible improvement. The operational reasoning or quantitative justification is limited.", "Insufficient": "The interpretation conflicts with the evidence, or the proposed action is generic, speculative or unsupported by the profile.", "Missing": "No interpretation or improvement strategy is provided." } }, { "id": "as1-profiles-d6", "label": "Writing and Brevity", "explanation": "", "descriptors": { "Excellent": "The profile caption and accompanying explanation are concise, precise and self-contained. The reader can identify the result and its meaning without searching elsewhere.", "Good": "The result and its meaning are clear. Minor repetition or language issues do not interrupt the explanation.", "Sufficient": "The main result is understandable. Some repetition, imprecise wording or dependence on surrounding text limits clarity.", "Insufficient": "Unclear or contradictory wording prevents the reader from following the result or its interpretation.", "Missing": "No caption or explanatory text is provided." } } ] }, { "id": "as1-kpis", "sheet": "AS1 KPIs", "title": "WH-AS1 - Warehouse KPIs", "kind": "positive", "scale": "credit", "cumulative": false, "presentation_order": [ "Excellent", "Good", "Sufficient", "Insufficient", "Missing" ], "items": [ { "id": "AS1-KPI1", "label": "Time", "maximum_points": 0.5, "definition_ids": [ "as1-kpis-d1", "as1-kpis-d2", "as1-kpis-d3", "as1-kpis-d4", "as1-kpis-d5", "as1-kpis-d6" ] }, { "id": "AS1-KPI2", "label": "Quality", "maximum_points": 0.5, "definition_ids": [ "as1-kpis-d1", "as1-kpis-d2", "as1-kpis-d3", "as1-kpis-d4", "as1-kpis-d5", "as1-kpis-d6" ] }, { "id": "AS1-KPI3", "label": "Quality", "maximum_points": 0.5, "definition_ids": [ "as1-kpis-d1", "as1-kpis-d2", "as1-kpis-d3", "as1-kpis-d4", "as1-kpis-d5", "as1-kpis-d6" ] }, { "id": "AS1-KPI4", "label": "Productivity", "maximum_points": 0.5, "definition_ids": [ "as1-kpis-d1", "as1-kpis-d2", "as1-kpis-d3", "as1-kpis-d4", "as1-kpis-d5", "as1-kpis-d6" ] }, { "id": "AS1-KPI5", "label": "Productivity", "maximum_points": 0.5, "definition_ids": [ "as1-kpis-d1", "as1-kpis-d2", "as1-kpis-d3", "as1-kpis-d4", "as1-kpis-d5", "as1-kpis-d6" ] } ], "definitions": [ { "id": "as1-kpis-d1", "label": "Definition Alignment", "explanation": "", "descriptors": { "Excellent": "Defines the KPI precisely and matches its fields, numerator, denominator and level of aggregation to the quantity being measured.", "Good": "The definition and data level are correct. A minor wording omission does not change what the KPI measures.", "Sufficient": "The KPI measures the intended quantity at the correct data level. Some field or formula definitions need clarification.", "Insufficient": "The definition, denominator or data level measures a different quantity or makes the KPI unreliable.", "Missing": "No assessable KPI definition is provided." } }, { "id": "as1-kpis-d2", "label": "Calculation Accuracy", "explanation": "", "descriptors": { "Excellent": "Calculates the KPI correctly, explains the method in the code and handles relevant edge cases. The reported value agrees with the implemented calculation.", "Good": "The main calculation and reported value are correct. Minor documentation or edge-case omissions do not materially affect the result.", "Sufficient": "The main calculation is correct and understandable. Limited treatment of edge cases restricts its use beyond the reported population.", "Insufficient": "Formula, aggregation or implementation errors materially affect the KPI value or its interpretation.", "Missing": "No assessable calculation is provided." } }, { "id": "as1-kpis-d3", "label": "Context and Benchmarks", "explanation": "", "descriptors": { "Excellent": "Reports the time window, population size and units. Justifies the benchmark or threshold using a source or stakeholder rationale and applies it to comparable quantities.", "Good": "Reports the measurement context and a relevant, supported benchmark. A minor omission does not change the comparison.", "Sufficient": "The time window and units are clear. Population detail or justification of the benchmark is limited.", "Insufficient": "Missing context or an arbitrary or incompatible benchmark prevents a meaningful comparison.", "Missing": "No measurement context or benchmark rationale is provided." } }, { "id": "as1-kpis-d4", "label": "Visualization and Reporting", "explanation": "", "descriptors": { "Excellent": "Presents the KPI as an appropriate visual or a clearly identified number. Units, denominators, scales and precision are correct, and rounding preserves the meaning.", "Good": "The KPI is clearly presented and correctly labeled. Minor numerical-formatting inconsistencies do not affect interpretation.", "Sufficient": "The KPI value and units are readable and its meaning is clear. Some presentation detail or numerical formatting needs correction.", "Insufficient": "Incorrect or missing units, denominators, scales or rounding make the reported KPI misleading or difficult to interpret.", "Missing": "No KPI value or relevant visual is reported." } }, { "id": "as1-kpis-d5", "label": "Insight and Opportunity", "explanation": "", "descriptors": { "Excellent": "Interprets the KPI and its drivers using numerical evidence. Proposes a feasible action and distinguishes observed associations from unsupported causal claims.", "Good": "Explains a supported operational implication and proposes a relevant action. Minor gaps remain in the quantitative reasoning or feasibility argument.", "Sufficient": "Gives a plausible interpretation supported by the KPI. The discussion of drivers or the proposed action remains limited.", "Insufficient": "The interpretation or proposed action is unsupported, contradicts the KPI or relies on unjustified causal claims.", "Missing": "No interpretation or improvement opportunity is provided." } }, { "id": "as1-kpis-d6", "label": "Writing and Brevity", "explanation": "", "descriptors": { "Excellent": "The KPI caption and accompanying explanation are concise, precise and self-contained. The result and its operational meaning are clear.", "Good": "The result and its meaning are clearly explained, with only minor repetition or language issues.", "Sufficient": "The main result is understandable. Some repetition, imprecise wording or dependence on surrounding text limits clarity.", "Insufficient": "Unclear or contradictory wording prevents the reader from following the result or its interpretation.", "Missing": "No caption or explanatory text is provided." } } ] }, { "id": "as2", "sheet": "AS2", "title": "WH-AS2 - Storage Location Assignment and Space Requirements", "kind": "positive", "scale": "credit", "cumulative": true, "presentation_order": [ "Sufficient", "Good", "Excellent", "Insufficient", "Missing" ], "items": [ { "id": "AS2-C1", "label": "Model Scope", "maximum_points": 2, "definition_ids": [ "as2-d1" ] }, { "id": "AS2-C2", "label": "Evidence Traceability", "maximum_points": 2, "definition_ids": [ "as2-d2" ] }, { "id": "AS2-C3", "label": "Product-Assignment Logic", "maximum_points": 2, "definition_ids": [ "as2-d3" ] }, { "id": "AS2-C4", "label": "Feasibility and Evaluation", "maximum_points": 2, "definition_ids": [ "as2-d4" ] }, { "id": "AS2-C5", "label": "Decision Insight", "maximum_points": 2, "definition_ids": [ "as2-d5" ] } ], "definitions": [ { "id": "as2-d1", "label": "Model Scope", "explanation": "The representation includes the relevant products, flows, resources, constraints, and performance measures without unsupported detail.", "descriptors": { "Excellent": "Explains how exclusions, simplifications and the location definition limit the model's conclusions and the warehouse decisions it can support.", "Good": "Justifies the selected model elements and boundaries using warehouse data or activity profiles, and explains their relevance to the storage decision.", "Sufficient": "Defines products, the storage-location unit, I/O points, flows, resources, constraints and performance measures. The scope is internally consistent and its exclusions and simplifications are stated.", "Insufficient": "Relevant scope evidence is present, but conflicting boundaries or missing product, location or flow definitions prevent a reliable interpretation of the modeled assignment.", "Missing": "No relevant evidence defining the model scope is provided." } }, { "id": "as2-d2", "label": "Evidence Traceability", "explanation": "Every modeled element is linked to supplied data, an explicit assumption, or a documented evidence gap.", "descriptors": { "Excellent": "Explains how conversions, proxy choices and source limitations could affect the parameter estimates or the interpretation of the comparison.", "Good": "Identifies exact data fields, selection rules and calculations for distances, trip frequencies, handling costs and space requirements. Justifies assumptions using the available evidence.", "Sufficient": "Links modeled elements and main parameters to identified sources, explicit assumptions or documented gaps. States units and time windows, with derivations that can be followed.", "Insufficient": "Relevant inputs are reported, but important sources or derivations cannot be followed, or unit and time-window definitions are inconsistent. The parameter estimates cannot be interpreted reliably.", "Missing": "No relevant evidence linking model inputs or assumptions to their sources is provided." } }, { "id": "as2-d3", "label": "Product-Assignment Logic", "explanation": "The proposed policy uses appropriate product and demand characteristics and is stated precisely enough to implement.", "descriptors": { "Excellent": "Explains why the formulation, variable quantities, space requirements and weighted objective represent the intended operating policy, and where that representation limits the decision.", "Good": "Supports optimality for the selected scope. Shows current and proposed allocations correctly on the warehouse layout. Specifies treatment of new or changed SKUs and when to recalculate the assignment.", "Sufficient": "Provides correct sets, parameters, variables, objective and constraints, consistent with distances, weights, space requirements and allocated quantities. Gives a valid allocation, basic placement rule and accurate solution status.", "Insufficient": "Relevant assignment work is present, but errors or missing evidence in the formulation, weights or allocated quantities prevent establishing valid assignment logic. Alternatively, the basic storage rule cannot be implemented as stated.", "Missing": "No relevant evidence of product-assignment logic is provided." } }, { "id": "as2-d4", "label": "Feasibility and Evaluation", "explanation": "Capacity, compatibility, replenishment, and service constraints are checked, and the intervention is compared with the baseline.", "descriptors": { "Excellent": "Explains the consequences of the checks and data gaps. Shows how the comparison preserves workload and cost meaning, including relevant differences in location quantities.", "Good": "Reports each check's result or explains why it is unavailable. Demonstrates matched scope, workload, period, units and weights, and states how each unverified constraint limits feasibility.", "Sufficient": "Addresses capacity, compatibility, replenishment and service, identifying unverified constraints. Compares baseline and proposed allocations using consistent inputs and correct objective values. Reports interpretable absolute and relative differences, with feasibility claims limited to supported checks.", "Insufficient": "Relevant checks or comparison results are present, but omitted checks, incorrect evaluation or unmatched inputs invalidate a central conclusion. Unsupported claims of feasibility also fall here, including claims about constraints for which no evidence is available.", "Missing": "No relevant feasibility or baseline-comparison evidence is provided." } }, { "id": "as2-d5", "label": "Decision Insight", "explanation": "The report explains why the product assignment is suitable, where it is sensitive, and what management must monitor.", "descriptors": { "Excellent": "Identifies when the recommendation would change. Uses quantitative evidence to prioritize trade-offs and monitoring needs, distinguishing what management can decide now from what requires further evidence.", "Good": "Quantifies the operational effects and explains how the main assumptions affect them. Explains relevant trade-offs and links monitoring indicators to implementation risks or conditions.", "Sufficient": "Gives a recommendation consistent with the comparison and explains its operational meaning. Addresses sensitivity to the main assumptions, limitations and what management should monitor.", "Insufficient": "Relevant interpretation is present, but the recommendation contradicts the evidence or depends on unsupported effects or causal claims. Missing discussion of sensitivity, limitations or monitoring leaves the decision unsupported.", "Missing": "No relevant management interpretation or recommendation is provided." } } ] }, { "id": "as3", "sheet": "AS3", "title": "WH-AS3 - Warehouse Layout Improvement", "kind": "positive", "scale": "credit", "cumulative": true, "presentation_order": [ "Sufficient", "Good", "Excellent", "Insufficient", "Missing" ], "items": [ { "id": "AS3-C1", "label": "Requirements and Capacity", "maximum_points": 2, "definition_ids": [ "as3-d1" ] }, { "id": "AS3-C2", "label": "Layout Logic", "maximum_points": 2, "definition_ids": [ "as3-d2" ] }, { "id": "AS3-C3", "label": "Quantitative Evaluation", "maximum_points": 2, "definition_ids": [ "as3-d3" ] }, { "id": "AS3-C4", "label": "Operational Feasibility", "maximum_points": 2, "definition_ids": [ "as3-d4" ] }, { "id": "AS3-C5", "label": "Decision Justification", "maximum_points": 2, "definition_ids": [ "as3-d5" ] } ], "definitions": [ { "id": "as3-d1", "label": "Requirements and Capacity", "explanation": "Space, storage, throughput, adjacency, and handling requirements are quantified and internally consistent.", "descriptors": { "Excellent": "Explains which requirements constrain the proposal and how uncertain estimates or omitted activities could change the stated capacity or space needs.", "Good": "Justifies inventory, capacity and access-space allowances, and any conversion of adjacency priorities into model weights.", "Sufficient": "Quantifies space, storage, throughput and handling requirements for a stated scope, with consistent units and traceable assumptions. Defines relevant adjacency needs and accounts for all stock and activities sharing the space.", "Insufficient": "Relevant requirements are reported, but unsupported quantities, incompatible units or omitted storage or handling needs invalidate a central capacity or space estimate.", "Missing": "No relevant requirements or capacity evidence is provided." } }, { "id": "as3-d2", "label": "Layout Logic", "explanation": "The proposed arrangement has clear departments, flows, interfaces, and decision rules tied to the storage model.", "descriptors": { "Excellent": "Explains interactions between placement, shared space, access and material flows, identifying the limits of the arrangement and its modeling simplifications.", "Good": "Explains how flow, adjacency and storage decisions support the arrangement, and why the chosen quantitative model suits the layout decision.", "Sufficient": "Defines a clear layout change connected to the diagnosed problem and storage requirements. Shows current and proposed arrangements at comparable scales, with labeled areas, handling interfaces and fixed boundaries.", "Insufficient": "Relevant proposal evidence is present, but the current/proposed comparison, flows or interfaces are missing or inconsistent enough to prevent interpreting the layout change.", "Missing": "No relevant layout-model or arrangement evidence is provided." } }, { "id": "as3-d3", "label": "Quantitative Evaluation", "explanation": "Distances, space use, congestion proxies, or other relevant measures are calculated correctly against the baseline under consistent assumptions.", "descriptors": { "Excellent": "Explains how input uncertainty, proxy measures or solution-quality limits could change interpretation of the comparison or shift burdens elsewhere.", "Good": "Demonstrates comparability of the inputs and measures. Explains calculation checks and, where relevant, the meaning of solver status, bounds or gaps.", "Sufficient": "Uses an appropriate calculation or optimization model with stated inputs, relationships, assumptions and constraints; defines variables and objective when optimizing. Reports correct baseline, proposal and change for space/capacity and a relevant operational measure on matched populations, periods, units and assumptions, with calculations traceable to the supplied evidence.", "Insufficient": "Relevant results are present, but no appropriate quantitative model is established, or incorrect calculations, unmatched inputs or misinterpreted proxy measures invalidate a central comparison.", "Missing": "No relevant numerical baseline comparison is provided." } }, { "id": "as3-d4", "label": "Operational Feasibility", "explanation": "Access, safety, replenishment, staging, and material-handling constraints are addressed.", "descriptors": { "Excellent": "Explains practical consequences of remaining constraints and evidence gaps, including displaced workload and conditions necessary for the proposal to operate as intended.", "Good": "Supports relevant checks with dimensions, capacities, workload evidence or documented requirements, linking each unresolved check to an explicit implementation condition.", "Sufficient": "Checks sufficient capacity and access for the scope, including reserve/active interactions, full-case picks and replenishment. Addresses relevant staging, fixed-interface and equipment constraints, identifying safety or operational conditions that still need verification.", "Insufficient": "Relevant checks are present, but insufficient capacity, unsupported safety claims or unaddressed material access, replenishment or equipment restrictions invalidate operational feasibility.", "Missing": "No relevant operational-feasibility evidence is provided." } }, { "id": "as3-d5", "label": "Decision Justification", "explanation": "The selected layout is justified against credible alternatives, limitations, and implementation consequences.", "descriptors": { "Excellent": "Uses the evidence to prioritize actions and trade-offs, identifies what could reverse the recommendation, and separates supported decisions from conditions needing further evidence.", "Good": "Justifies the alternative and uncertainty examined, explains how sensitivity affects the preferred option, and links implementation conditions and monitoring to the main risks.", "Sufficient": "Supports the recommendation with the baseline/proposal comparison, sensitivity analysis of a consequential uncertainty, and comparison with one other credible layout option. Addresses the main limitations and implementation consequences.", "Insufficient": "Relevant interpretation is present, but the recommendation contradicts the evidence, lacks sensitivity analysis or a credible alternative, or ignores a material implementation condition.", "Missing": "No relevant layout recommendation or decision justification is provided." } } ] }, { "id": "as4", "sheet": "AS4", "title": "WH-AS4 - Order-Picking Improvement", "kind": "positive", "scale": "credit", "cumulative": true, "presentation_order": [ "Sufficient", "Good", "Excellent", "Insufficient", "Missing" ], "items": [ { "id": "AS4-C1", "label": "Process Definition / Task 1", "maximum_points": 1, "definition_ids": [ "as4-d1" ] }, { "id": "AS4-C2", "label": "Process Definition / Task 2", "maximum_points": 1, "definition_ids": [ "as4-d2" ] }, { "id": "AS4-C3", "label": "Design Logic and Integration / Task 1", "maximum_points": 1, "definition_ids": [ "as4-d3" ] }, { "id": "AS4-C4", "label": "Design Logic and Integration / Task 2", "maximum_points": 1, "definition_ids": [ "as4-d4" ] }, { "id": "AS4-C5", "label": "Quantitative Evaluation / Task 1", "maximum_points": 1, "definition_ids": [ "as4-d5" ] }, { "id": "AS4-C6", "label": "Quantitative Evaluation / Task 2", "maximum_points": 1, "definition_ids": [ "as4-d6" ] }, { "id": "AS4-C7", "label": "Operational Feasibility / Task 1", "maximum_points": 1, "definition_ids": [ "as4-d7" ] }, { "id": "AS4-C8", "label": "Operational Feasibility / Task 2", "maximum_points": 1, "definition_ids": [ "as4-d8" ] }, { "id": "AS4-C9", "label": "Decision Justification / Task 1", "maximum_points": 1, "definition_ids": [ "as4-d9" ] }, { "id": "AS4-C10", "label": "Decision Justification / Task 2", "maximum_points": 1, "definition_ids": [ "as4-d10" ] } ], "definitions": [ { "id": "as4-d1", "label": "Process Definition / Task 1", "explanation": "Baseline and proposed rules, roles, scope, and assumptions are clear and internally consistent.", "descriptors": { "Excellent": "Explains which process assumptions limit the findings and how plausible departures would change their interpretation.", "Good": "Justifies the study scope and explains how demand, order release and work assignment are represented, including the consequences of missing inputs.", "Sufficient": "Defines the baseline and changed picking rules, roles, scope and assumptions consistently, from order release to completed orders. Identifies the fixed storage, layout and equipment, and distinguishes company facts, assumptions and missing inputs.", "Insufficient": "Relevant process evidence is present, but contradictory rules, scope or assumptions prevent interpreting the baseline or proposal.", "Missing": "No relevant baseline or proposed picking-process definition is provided." } }, { "id": "as4-d2", "label": "Process Definition / Task 2", "explanation": "Picking rules, roles, scope, and assumptions are clear and internally consistent for each retained combination.", "descriptors": { "Excellent": "Explains how differences in release, assignment or interfaces limit comparisons and where further process evidence could change the findings.", "Good": "Explains how the process changes between retained combinations and why any shared strategy or assumptions can represent each combination.", "Sufficient": "Lists every retained storage, layout and equipment combination and defines its picking rules, roles, scope and assumptions consistently, from order release to completion. Identifies relevant interfaces, company facts, assumptions and missing inputs.", "Insufficient": "Relevant definitions are present, but a retained combination is omitted or contradictory rules and interfaces prevent interpreting its picking process.", "Missing": "No relevant picking-process definition for retained designs is provided." } }, { "id": "as4-d3", "label": "Design Logic and Integration / Task 1", "explanation": "Routing and other picking choices suit the workload and fixed warehouse, with justified methods and assumptions.", "descriptors": { "Excellent": "Evaluates consequential simplifications and method trade-offs, explaining when another suitable picking approach would become preferable.", "Good": "Uses workload or warehouse evidence to justify the choices and adaptations, explaining interactions with any batching, work assignment, zones or sorting used.", "Sufficient": "Explains why the selected routing method and other changed picking decisions suit the workload, aisle structure, storage policy and fixed equipment. States the method assumptions and their fit to the modeled warehouse.", "Insufficient": "Relevant choices are described, but unsupported method assumptions or incompatibility with the workload or fixed warehouse invalidate the design rationale.", "Missing": "No relevant justification of picking-method choices is provided." } }, { "id": "as4-d4", "label": "Design Logic and Integration / Task 2", "explanation": "Picking choices suit the workload and retained storage, layout, and equipment combinations, with justified methods and assumptions.", "descriptors": { "Excellent": "Evaluates where approximation or model assumptions could alter the relative suitability of the retained designs and identifies a credible alternative approach.", "Good": "Explains adaptations and interactions among picking, storage, layout and equipment, using case evidence to justify model inputs and any shared strategy.", "Sufficient": "Justifies a compatible picking strategy and routing or travel model for every retained design. Checks relevant aisle geometry, depot position, storage pattern, demand and equipment assumptions against each design.", "Insufficient": "Relevant choices are described, but a retained design lacks a compatible strategy or unsupported model assumptions invalidate the design rationale.", "Missing": "No relevant picking-method justification for retained designs is provided." } }, { "id": "as4-d5", "label": "Quantitative Evaluation / Task 1", "explanation": "Implemented feasible routes support correct, fair comparisons using appropriate measures of the picking-only effect.", "descriptors": { "Excellent": "Explains how uncertainty, proxies or solution-quality limits affect the comparison and which conclusions remain supported. Interprets available solver status, bounds or gaps when a solver is used.", "Good": "Checks routes and calculations against an independent check or known result, and explains why the comparison supports the claimed picking effect.", "Sufficient": "Implements feasible route generation and reports correct baseline, proposal and change using defined measures and units. Keeps storage, layout and equipment fixed, matches demand, period and evaluation conditions, and reports resource changes. Makes calculations and the picking-only effect traceable.", "Insufficient": "Relevant results are present, but route generation is absent or invalid, or calculation, comparison or attribution errors invalidate a central picking-only result.", "Missing": "No relevant numerical baseline/proposal comparison is provided." } }, { "id": "as4-d6", "label": "Quantitative Evaluation / Task 2", "explanation": "Suitable routing or travel models support correct, fair comparisons for each combination, with picking and combined design effects correctly attributed.", "descriptors": { "Excellent": "Explains how uncertainty, approximation or solution-quality limits affect comparisons between designs and which conclusions remain supported. Interprets available solver status, bounds or gaps when a solver is used.", "Good": "Checks calculations and model application against an independent check or known result, and explains why the comparisons support the attributed picking or combined effects.", "Sufficient": "Uses suitable route generation or a travel model to report correct baseline, proposal and change for every retained design, with defined measures, units and resource settings. Matches demand, period and evaluation conditions. Uses a common within-design picking comparison where feasible; otherwise explains its infeasibility and reports the combined effect.", "Insufficient": "Relevant results are present, but a retained design is unevaluated or calculation, comparison, model-application or attribution errors invalidate a central result.", "Missing": "No relevant numerical evaluation of retained designs is provided." } }, { "id": "as4-d7", "label": "Operational Feasibility / Task 1", "explanation": "Capacity, access, labor, equipment, replenishment, and order completion are supported for the current warehouse; limitations are explicit.", "descriptors": { "Excellent": "Explains interactions and displaced workload at limiting resources, including the conditions needed to maintain feasible operation when demand or resources change.", "Good": "Uses dimensions, capacities, workload or timing evidence to justify the relevant checks and identifies implementation conditions for unresolved constraints.", "Sufficient": "Checks load capacity, access, labor and equipment availability, replenishment and order completion for the current warehouse, including handoffs or consolidation where relevant. Supports claimed operating conditions and states unresolved checks as limitations.", "Insufficient": "Relevant checks are present, but an unsupported or violated capacity, access, resource or completion condition invalidates a central feasibility claim.", "Missing": "No relevant operational-feasibility evidence is provided." } }, { "id": "as4-d8", "label": "Operational Feasibility / Task 2", "explanation": "Capacity, access, resources, replenishment interfaces, handoffs, and order completion are supported for each retained design; limitations are explicit.", "descriptors": { "Excellent": "Explains interactions and displaced workload across the retained designs, identifying limiting interfaces and conditions needed as demand or resources change.", "Good": "Uses dimensions, capacities, workload or timing evidence to justify relevant checks for each design and identifies implementation conditions for unresolved constraints.", "Sufficient": "Checks load capacity, access, resources, replenishment interfaces and order completion for every retained design, including handoffs or consolidation where relevant. Supports claimed operating conditions and states unresolved checks as limitations.", "Insufficient": "Relevant checks are present, but an unevaluated design or an unsupported or violated operating condition invalidates a central feasibility claim.", "Missing": "No relevant operational-feasibility evidence for retained designs is provided." } }, { "id": "as4-d9", "label": "Decision Justification / Task 1", "explanation": "The recommendation explains picking-only benefits, resource trade-offs, limitations, and implementation conditions, using sensitivity results where relevant.", "descriptors": { "Excellent": "Identifies conditions that could reverse the recommendation and prioritizes practical actions or further evidence according to their effect on the decision.", "Good": "Explains why the recommendation follows from the evidence, how the consequential uncertainty examined affects it, and which implementation risks need monitoring.", "Sufficient": "Supports a current-warehouse recommendation with the picking-only comparison, resource trade-offs, limitations and implementation conditions. Explains the sensitivity results relevant to that recommendation, or why the shared sensitivity does not affect it.", "Insufficient": "Relevant recommendation evidence is present, but unsupported benefit claims or omitted resource, uncertainty or implementation consequences invalidate the central recommendation.", "Missing": "No relevant current-warehouse recommendation is provided." } }, { "id": "as4-d10", "label": "Decision Justification / Task 2", "explanation": "The recommendation explains combined design benefits, resource trade-offs, limitations, and implementation conditions, using sensitivity results where relevant.", "descriptors": { "Excellent": "Identifies conditions that could reverse the preferred design and prioritizes practical actions or further evidence according to their effect on the decision.", "Good": "Explains the trade-offs behind selecting or rejecting retained designs, how the consequential uncertainty examined affects the preference, and which implementation risks need monitoring.", "Sufficient": "Supports a recommendation across retained designs using combined performance, resource trade-offs, limitations and implementation conditions. Explains relevant sensitivity results and distinguishes supported design benefits from uncertain picking-only effects.", "Insufficient": "Relevant recommendation evidence is present, but an omitted retained design or unsupported benefit, uncertainty or implementation claims invalidate the central recommendation.", "Missing": "No relevant recommendation across retained designs is provided." } } ] }, { "id": "as5", "sheet": "AS5", "title": "WH-AS5 - Intervention Trade-Off Analysis", "kind": "positive", "scale": "credit", "cumulative": true, "presentation_order": [ "Sufficient", "Good", "Excellent", "Insufficient", "Missing" ], "items": [ { "id": "AS5-C1", "label": "Fair Comparison", "maximum_points": 2, "definition_ids": [ "as5-d1" ] }, { "id": "AS5-C2", "label": "Performance Trade-Offs", "maximum_points": 2, "definition_ids": [ "as5-d2" ] }, { "id": "AS5-C3", "label": "System Interactions", "maximum_points": 2, "definition_ids": [ "as5-d3" ] }, { "id": "AS5-C4", "label": "Uncertainty and Robustness", "maximum_points": 2, "definition_ids": [ "as5-d4" ] }, { "id": "AS5-C5", "label": "Management Synthesis", "maximum_points": 2, "definition_ids": [ "as5-d5" ] } ], "definitions": [ { "id": "as5-d1", "label": "Fair Comparison", "explanation": "Product-assignment, layout, and picking interventions are compared using consistent baselines, demand, units, and constraints.", "descriptors": { "Excellent": "Uses checks or contrasting evaluations to establish which conclusions survive remaining comparability limits and identifies the evidence needed for unresolved contrasts.", "Good": "Explains why the comparison settings support the intended contrasts and how adaptations to a changed design preserve, or limit, comparability.", "Sufficient": "Defines the observed baseline, isolated interventions and retained combinations with compatible layout, product assignment and picking rules. Uses matched populations, workload, periods, units and evaluation assumptions, states changed resources and constraints, and records feasibility, exclusions and failed or unavailable evaluations distinctly from zero results.", "Insufficient": "Relevant scenarios are present, but an altered baseline, incompatible configuration, unmatched comparison or omitted evaluation status invalidates a central contrast.", "Missing": "No relevant scenario definitions or baseline comparison evidence is provided." } }, { "id": "as5-d2", "label": "Performance Trade-Offs", "explanation": "Effects on cost, throughput, space, service, workload, and risk are quantified where the evidence permits.", "descriptors": { "Excellent": "Identifies which trade-offs determine the preferred option under competing objectives and explains how unmeasured consequences limit the performance ranking.", "Good": "Explains gains and losses together, identifies consequential resource trade-offs and justifies the selected measures and any proxies.", "Sufficient": "Reports correct baseline and scenario values, changes, units and resource requirements for the relevant measures, quantifying consequences where evidence permits. Explains unexpected outcomes as far as the evidence allows, separates supported explanations from hypotheses, and suggests relevant changes or further experiments. Distinguishes estimates, observations and unavailable measures.", "Insufficient": "Relevant results are present, but incorrect quantities, misleading measures or omitted consequential resource changes invalidate a central performance claim.", "Missing": "No relevant performance or resource comparison is provided." } }, { "id": "as5-d3", "label": "System Interactions", "explanation": "Complementarities, conflicts, and shifted burdens across the three interventions are identified.", "descriptors": { "Excellent": "Explains how an intervention's value changes or remains stable across design settings, and how the observed interaction, compatibility constraint or absence of detected interaction informs the useful combination.", "Good": "Supports the proposed interaction mechanisms with relevant contrasts or operating evidence, tracing effects on replenishment, capacity, labor, equipment or service as applicable.", "Sufficient": "Uses contrasts that change one decision while holding the others fixed to distinguish isolated and combined effects where compatible scenarios permit. Explains complementarities, conflicts and shifted burdens among layout, product assignment and picking, separating supported explanations from hypotheses and stating limits when effects cannot be isolated.", "Insufficient": "Relevant interaction evidence is present, but unsupported attribution, incompatible contrasts or ignored shifted burdens invalidate a central explanation of combined effects.", "Missing": "No relevant analysis of interactions or combined effects is provided." } }, { "id": "as5-d4", "label": "Uncertainty and Robustness", "explanation": "Material assumptions, sensitivities, data limitations, and implementation risks are tested or bounded.", "descriptors": { "Excellent": "Establishes conditions or decision thresholds under which the recommendation remains supported or changes, and prioritizes further evidence by its likely effect on the decision.", "Good": "Justifies the uncertainties and ranges examined, explains changes in scenario ranking or feasibility, and identifies important risks not covered by the analysis.", "Sufficient": "Identifies material assumptions, missing data and implementation risks, and tests consequential uncertainty through sensitivity analysis or defensible bounds. Explains how the results affect the recommendation and which conclusions remain uncertain.", "Insufficient": "Relevant limitations are stated, but a consequential uncertainty is left untested and unbounded, or invalid sensitivity reasoning undermines a central robustness claim.", "Missing": "No relevant uncertainty, sensitivity or risk evidence is provided." } }, { "id": "as5-d5", "label": "Management Synthesis", "explanation": "The report provides a concise, prioritized course of action with conditions, sequencing, and monitoring indicators.", "descriptors": { "Excellent": "Uses decision triggers to connect monitoring with continuation, adaptation or rejection, and prioritizes actions or further evidence according to their decision consequences.", "Good": "Explains why the preferred course balances the main trade-offs, connects sequencing to design dependencies and identifies what management should do if key conditions are not met.", "Sufficient": "Gives a concise, prioritized course of action supported by the evaluated performance, resource and feasibility evidence. States implementation conditions, a workable sequence and monitoring indicators, limiting best-solution claims to the evaluated alternatives and assumptions.", "Insufficient": "Relevant advice is present, but unsupported selection, infeasible implementation or missing priorities and conditions prevent a defensible course of action.", "Missing": "No relevant management recommendation is provided." } } ] }, { "id": "report-code", "sheet": "Report and Code", "title": "WH-FINAL - Report and Code Quality", "kind": "deduction", "scale": "deduction", "cumulative": false, "presentation_order": [ "Meets Requirements", "Needs Correction", "Substantial Problem" ], "items": [ { "id": "QLT-C1", "label": "Analysis Execution", "maximum_points": 2, "definition_ids": [ "report-code-d1" ] }, { "id": "QLT-C2", "label": "Outputs and PDF", "maximum_points": 1, "definition_ids": [ "report-code-d2" ] }, { "id": "QLT-C3", "label": "Report Sources", "maximum_points": 1, "definition_ids": [ "report-code-d3" ] }, { "id": "QLT-C4", "label": "Readability and Navigation", "maximum_points": 1, "definition_ids": [ "report-code-d4" ] } ], "definitions": [ { "id": "report-code-d1", "label": "Analysis Execution", "explanation": "One documented entry point runs from the original inputs in a clean folder and saves the required outputs. Setup, dependencies, scenario settings, and applicable seeds are recorded.", "descriptors": { "Meets Requirements": "The documented entry point runs from original inputs in a clean project folder and saves the required evidence automatically. Setup, dependencies, scenario definitions, settings and applicable seeds are supplied; notebooks execute from a fresh kernel without hidden state.", "Needs Correction": "A specific, documented setup or execution correction restores the required run, or some evidence needs manual generation. The affected step and correction are identifiable without reconstructing missing analysis.", "Substantial Problem": "Missing or unusable code, inputs, dependencies or execution steps prevent generation of required evidence, and an identifiable limited correction has not restored it. Reconstructing missing analysis is one example of this material blockage." } }, { "id": "report-code-d2", "label": "Outputs and PDF", "explanation": "The PDF matches the submitted outputs and uses consistent scenario definitions and names.", "descriptors": { "Meets Requirements": "Submitted outputs can be matched to the PDF using consistent scenario definitions, names and versions. Reported values, tables and charts agree with their saved evidence, allowing stated rounding and justified numerical variation.", "Needs Correction": "A limited stale asset, version or naming mismatch needs correction, but the intended scenario and result can be established reliably from the submitted evidence.", "Substantial Problem": "Material version, scenario or result mismatches prevent a reliable match between the submitted outputs and the PDF." } }, { "id": "report-code-d3", "label": "Report Sources", "explanation": "The supplied LaTeX sources, bibliography, assets, and instructions reproduce the submitted PDF.", "descriptors": { "Meets Requirements": "The complete supplied LaTeX project, bibliography, assets and instructions compile to a report consistent with the submitted PDF in content, results and references.", "Needs Correction": "A specific, documented instruction or asset correction restores compilation of the report. The submitted sources establish the intended content without reconstructing missing sections or material evidence.", "Substantial Problem": "Missing or unusable report sources, bibliography or material assets, or unresolved compilation failures, prevent reproduction of the submitted report content." } }, { "id": "report-code-d4", "label": "Readability and Navigation", "explanation": "Structure, formatting, terminology, and cross-references make the evidence easy to locate and inspect.", "descriptors": { "Meets Requirements": "Structure, formatting, terminology and cross-references let readers locate and inspect the report evidence. Tables, charts and their associated explanations remain readable at normal viewing size.", "Needs Correction": "Recurring presentation or navigation problems hinder inspection of identifiable evidence, although that evidence can still be located and interpreted.", "Substantial Problem": "Substantial presentation or navigation problems hinder reliable inspection of material report evidence, including a consequential table, figure or explanation." } } ] }, { "id": "reproducibility", "sheet": "Reproducibility", "title": "Reproducibility Checks", "kind": "status", "scale": "verification", "cumulative": false, "presentation_order": [ "Reproduced", "Reproduced After a Documented Correction", "Failed", "Not Checked" ], "items": [ { "id": "REP-C1", "label": "Analysis Execution", "maximum_points": null, "definition_ids": [ "reproducibility-d1" ] }, { "id": "REP-C2", "label": "Outputs and PDF", "maximum_points": null, "definition_ids": [ "reproducibility-d2" ] }, { "id": "REP-C3", "label": "Report Compilation", "maximum_points": null, "definition_ids": [ "reproducibility-d3" ] } ], "definitions": [ { "id": "reproducibility-d1", "label": "Analysis Execution", "explanation": "", "descriptors": { "Reproduced": "Record the original command, environment and inputs, scenario settings and generated outputs. The check succeeds with the submitted version.", "Reproduced After a Documented Correction": "Record the original command, environment and inputs, scenario settings and generated outputs. The check succeeds after the exact correction recorded in the comment.", "Failed": "Record the original command, environment and inputs, scenario settings and generated outputs. The attempted check fails; record reproducible steps and the error or discrepancy.", "Not Checked": "Record the original command, environment and inputs, scenario settings and generated outputs. The check was not performed; state why and what remains unverified." } }, { "id": "reproducibility-d2", "label": "Outputs and PDF", "explanation": "", "descriptors": { "Reproduced": "Record baseline and alternative output identifiers, compared values, units and the report locations checked. The check succeeds with the submitted version.", "Reproduced After a Documented Correction": "Record baseline and alternative output identifiers, compared values, units and the report locations checked. The check succeeds after the exact correction recorded in the comment.", "Failed": "Record baseline and alternative output identifiers, compared values, units and the report locations checked. The attempted check fails; record reproducible steps and the error or discrepancy.", "Not Checked": "Record baseline and alternative output identifiers, compared values, units and the report locations checked. The check was not performed; state why and what remains unverified." } }, { "id": "reproducibility-d3", "label": "Report Compilation", "explanation": "", "descriptors": { "Reproduced": "Record the documented compilation command, available sources and comparison with the submitted PDF. The check succeeds with the submitted version.", "Reproduced After a Documented Correction": "Record the documented compilation command, available sources and comparison with the submitted PDF. The check succeeds after the exact correction recorded in the comment.", "Failed": "Record the documented compilation command, available sources and comparison with the submitted PDF. The attempted check fails; record reproducible steps and the error or discrepancy.", "Not Checked": "Record the documented compilation command, available sources and comparison with the submitted PDF. The check was not performed; state why and what remains unverified." } } ] } ] }