30
Review questions
All questions have a recorded response, assessment and action.
Technical programme review · 27 July 2026
EG334SProgramme decisions & readiness record
A consolidated write-up of the 30-question TPM review, combining the team’s stated position with programme assessment and concrete next actions.
Programme snapshot
What the discussion established
11
Directions agreed
Clear ownership exists for cost, evidence and core controls.
8
Attention items
Most relate to continuity, rehearsal, evidence and teardown.
11
Open decisions
These need dates, owners or explicit team agreement.
Programme principle
A technically working system is not sufficient. It must also be explainable, observable, financially controlled, recoverable and safely decommissioned.
Immediate focus
Priority action register
These actions provide the highest protection for marks and demonstration continuity. They should take priority over new dashboard features.
Agree what “done” means
Publish team acceptance criteria and identify one accountable final approver.
Prove backup operation
Name a backup and complete a rehearsal without Bernard’s intervention.
Reconcile dashboard facts
Correct stale IDs, hashes, costs, alarm statements, SSH wording and footer status.
Rehearse the demonstration
Time the live path, degraded modes, Q&A and operator handoffs.
Resolve publication access
Record the five-member decision on public report and deck access.
Prepare verified closure
Inventory out-of-band resources and define teardown evidence before demo day.
Full record
All questions, answers and TPM actions
Open a review area to see the individual decisions. Status indicates whether the direction is agreed, still open, or requires immediate attention.
01 · OutcomesSuccess, acceptance and repeatabilityThe minimum outcome is clear: pass the assessment. The team still needs to agree the formal definition of done and prove that the environment is repeatable.3 items
01
What does successful delivery mean?
Decision openTeam position
Pass the exam.
TPM assessment
This is a valid primary outcome, but it should be converted into a measurable target with a safety margin above the minimum passing mark.
02
Which acceptance criteria are complete, and who accepts them?
Needs attentionTeam position
To be determined during discussion with all team members.
TPM assessment
Acceptance criteria are pending team agreement. Until written and owned, the team cannot objectively declare the project ready.
03
What proves the system can be rebuilt from scratch?
Decision openTeam position
A controlled clean-rebuild rehearsal has been recommended.
TPM assessment
Current evidence proves the system has worked, but independent repeatability is not yet demonstrated.
02 · PeopleOwnership and team readinessAccounts exist for all team members and section knowledge is reported as strong. Operational capability remains concentrated in Bernard.4 items
04
Who can operate the system if Bernard is unavailable?
Needs attentionTeam position
Any team member could do so because accounts have been created for everyone.
TPM assessment
Account availability is necessary, but it does not prove permissions, knowledge or confidence. One named backup is required.
05
Has Jeff performed the rebuild and demonstration?
Needs attentionTeam position
No.
TPM assessment
The key-person mitigation is documented but untested. This remains a high delivery risk.
06
What is the individual-presentation deadline?
Direction agreedTeam position
26 August 2026 at 6:30 PM SGT.
TPM assessment
The deadline leaves enough time, but it should not be treated as the working deadline because individual presentations carry 30% of each member’s grade.
07
Can members defend their assigned report sections?
Decision openTeam position
Yes.
TPM assessment
This is positive, but readiness should be demonstrated through questions rather than self-declared.
03 · DemonstrationAssessment-day readinessThe assessment is scheduled for 26 August. VPN #2 will be provisioned beforehand, but rehearsal timing, evidence selection and degraded-mode operation still need to be finalized.5 items
08
When is the assessed demonstration?
Decision openTeam position
26 August 2026 at 6:30 PM SGT.
TPM assessment
This date should drive the final rebuild, evidence refresh, configuration freeze and readiness review.
09
When will VPN #2 be provisioned?
Decision openTeam position
Before the day of the demonstration on 26 August 2026.
TPM assessment
The intent is correct, but it needs a precise start time and recovery window.
10
Can the demonstration continue if live services fail?
Decision openTeam position
A three-level contingency approach has been recommended.
TPM assessment
A dashboard failure must not become a project failure. Cloud consoles, tests and deployment records remain the authoritative evidence.
11
What evidence will be shown live?
Needs attentionTeam position
Mainly ping tests between each site; the rest is still to be determined.
TPM assessment
Ping proves network reachability but not application operation, monitoring or repeatability.
12
Has the full demonstration been timed?
Needs attentionTeam position
Not yet.
TPM assessment
Timing is an open readiness risk, especially because the dashboard contains a large volume of material.
04 · GovernanceTruth, accountability and release controlThe dashboard is an innovative presentation method. It needs a clear source-of-truth hierarchy and one accountable final approver.4 items
13
What is the authoritative source for project facts?
Direction agreedTeam position
The distinction between live sources and explanatory text was initially unclear.
TPM assessment
When two values conflict, the team needs a documented rule for deciding which one is trusted.
14
Who signs off the dashboard before assessment?
Decision openTeam position
Everyone.
TPM assessment
Everyone can contribute to verification, but one person must be accountable for the final go/no-go decision.
15
Why use a dashboard as the single presentation surface?
Direction agreedTeam position
For ease of presentation and to try a new way of presenting.
TPM assessment
This is a strong rationale. The dashboard should make the presentation faster and clearer without amplifying outdated information.
16
Is an automated pre-release consistency check required?
Direction agreedTeam position
Probably not; its purpose was questioned.
TPM assessment
Automation is optional. The control exists to catch outdated identifiers, hashes, costs and contradictory status statements before the exam.
05 · Risk & securityPublication, exposure and continuityPublic accessibility and published identifiers are intentional. The team still needs collective agreement on pre-submission publication and a tested continuity arrangement.4 items
17
Has the team accepted the publication risk?
Needs attentionTeam position
The project is still at an early stage and the decision has not been finalized.
TPM assessment
The risk is already active because the shared report is publicly downloadable before submission.
18
Is public access to the hosting address intentional?
Decision openTeam position
Yes, so everyone can access it.
TPM assessment
Convenient access for team members and assessors is different from unrestricted access by anyone online.
19
Are published IP addresses and identifiers necessary?
Direction agreedTeam position
Yes.
TPM assessment
Retaining them is reasonable as assessment evidence. They are not credentials, but exposure should be intentional and controlled.
20
What happens if Bernard’s laptop or sessions are unavailable?
Needs attentionTeam position
A named backup-operator model has been recommended.
TPM assessment
Accounts exist, but continuity is not proven until another member succeeds from their own laptop without Bernard’s credentials.
06 · FinOpsCost ownership and guardrailsBernard owns cost and budget management. The rebuild timing limits spend, but cost labels and the budget count must be reconciled.5 items
21
What is the authoritative fully deployed cost?
Direction agreedTeam position
The fully deployed environment will be activated before demonstration day.
TPM assessment
The dashboard’s figures describe different scopes. Azure is about $7.85/day; AWS list price is about $3.66/day; combined theoretical list price is about $11.51/day.
22
Who owns cost management?
Direction agreedTeam position
Bernard.
TPM assessment
Ownership is clear. Approximately $0.44/day should be used as the current parked Azure estimate unless a fresh calculation supersedes it.
23
Who owns the budgets, and how many exist?
Decision openTeam position
Bernard owns them.
TPM assessment
The export documents two AWS budgets and one Azure budget. That is three, while the dashboard displays four.
24
Who receives alerts, and when will teardown occur?
Decision openTeam position
Bernard owns the budgets. Teardown will occur once the demonstration has concluded.
TPM assessment
The trigger is sensible, but completion should be formally confirmed and independently verified.
25
Is there a maximum additional demonstration spend?
Decision openTeam position
No limit has been set.
TPM assessment
A cap creates a deliberate decision point if provisioning or troubleshooting runs longer than planned.
07 · ClosureTeardown, evidence and learningAssessors provide final acceptance, while the team must execute and independently verify teardown. The archive should demonstrate learning, not retain operational secrets.5 items
26
Who independently verifies decommissioning?
Decision openTeam position
The assessors.
TPM assessment
Assessors provide external acceptance, but they should not be the team’s first verification layer.
27
Which resources exist outside the main deployment lifecycle?
Needs attentionTeam position
AWS resources.
TPM assessment
The platform is identified, but teardown needs an exact inventory of out-of-band resources.
28
What evidence proves teardown occurred before the deadline?
Direction agreedTeam position
Log files.
TPM assessment
Logs are suitable only if they prove successful authentication and post-deletion inspection, not merely that delete commands were issued.
29
Who retains the final evidence pack?
Direction agreedTeam position
Bernard.
TPM assessment
Bernard can be the custodian, but the archive should not become another single point of failure.
30
What should the project leave behind?
Direction agreedTeam position
Learning outcomes.
TPM assessment
The strongest outcome is not merely a working network, but an explainable, observable, controlled, recoverable and safely decommissioned system.
Recommended control dates
Path to assessment
- Presentation outlinesAll five individual structures agreed.
- First drafts + technical rehearsalFix access, commands and sequencing.
- Team reviewTechnical fact-check and mock viva.
- Dress rehearsalTimed end-to-end run with operator handoffs.
- VPN #2 rebuild and freezeValidate by 2:00 PM; capture fallback evidence.
- Assessment · 6:30 PM SGTFinal health check, demonstrate, confirm closure trigger.
- Decommission deadlineVerified teardown evidence complete before 11:59 PM SGT.
Conclusion
Protect the pass by proving operational readiness.
EG334S has credible architecture, unusually strong evidence and disciplined cost awareness. The work now shifts from building to controlling: agree acceptance criteria, remove contradictions, rehearse a backup operator, prove the demonstration path and prepare verified closure.
The strongest final message is not that two tunnels were built. It is that the team can explain the design, demonstrate the service, respond to failure, control cost and remove everything safely.