Thesis Meeting | Jan 27, 2024 - 2:30pm - Teams

[samm82]

This was a rough week for me so I didn't get much done at all. Thanks for responding to open questions; now we still have things to discuss!

1. "Discrepancy Source Tier" counts: Improvements to "Discrepancy Source Tier" Pie Charts #133
   1. The best way to present this data? I'm really thinking that a table would be better and would perhaps require less explanation.
   2. Would a distinction between "internal discrepancy" (i.e., there are conflicting statements in a single document) and a "self-contained discrepancy" (i.e., there is a single incorrect statement in a document) be meaningful? Currently, these are all considered discrepancies "within a single document", which I think oversimplifies this nuance; I think that a contradiction is worse than a mistake, especially since some mistakes are just typos in term names!
2. Purpose of Scope section: Dr. Carette's Review of Scope #130
   @JacquesCarette mentioned that "listing a bunch of things that are 'out of scope' at [this] level of detail[] seems not useful at all" and that I should "remove everything that explicitly mentions things that are 'out of scope'". However, I think that my intent behind including this information would be expressed by fixing my "insufficiently strong 'story'". Since we want to convince the reader that we have been thorough with our research, including out-of-scope approaches shows that we considered them and that we didn't forget, ignore, or miss them (similar to using "--" or "N/A" instead of leaving a field blank). As written, the reader doesn't know "why [they're] being told all this stuff." My vision for this section is that it won't be interesting to most readers; the intro will give an overview and a summary of its contents to set expectations for the rest of our research (i.e., what is and isn't included) and the rest is "optional" reading. If a reader is interested in, say, language-specific approaches, then they could read just that subsection, and if they wanted to know if we covered, say, EMSEC testing, a Ctrl+F would reveal its relevant discussion. Is this something that should be explicitly included in this section intro?

[samm82]

1.i. Yes, as per #133, these data would best be presented as a table. I'll track this as a separate issue (#138).
1.ii. Analysis "one level down" is really the important part of my work. Since I can already visualize how to implement/describe this, this is definitely meaningful. I'll do this once I've converted these charts into a table (#138).
2. As per #130, I should put more detailed scope analysis in an appendix, so that it doesn't bog down the reader but it's there if they are interested. If the actual body of the Scope ends up being just a page long, I should wrap it into my Intro section; otherwise, it can stay as its own section. Then, @JacquesCarette can review this revision alongside #132 which also affected the Intro (this Scope revision may not affect the Intro, but this makes more sense since it might). (#139)

[samm82]

And, we also landed on a catch-all term for what we've been calling "discrepancies": flaws! This is the last to-do item of #100 (which I was just thinking of pulling out to its own issue today 😅).