grceng.academy
Review lab 40 bonus XP

Review the vendor register records

Start labRead the room

Objectives

Six vendor register records are up for annual review. The vendor manager insists they are all fine because 'every vendor answered the questionnaire'.

Answering is not the bar. Accept the records a pipeline can actually operate; reject the ones that encode a manual, unverifiable process.

Verdicts are accept or reject. Every rejection needs one reason code from: wrong-tiering-axis | judgement-scoring | stale-evidence | no-delta-detection.

vendor register records (field summary)

V-1  tier: data-access | scoring: declared rules | evidence: api feed, 90-day freshness | delta: on
V-2  tier: annual contract value | scoring: declared rules | evidence: api feed, 90-day freshness | delta: on
V-3  tier: data-access | scoring: "analyst rates 1-5 by feel" | evidence: api feed | delta: on
V-4  tier: data-access | scoring: declared rules | evidence: "SOC 2 on file (yes/no)" | delta: on
V-5  tier: data-access | scoring: declared rules | evidence: api feed, 90-day freshness | delta: answers diffed year over year
V-6  tier: data-access | scoring: declared rules | evidence: api feed | delta: "vendors re-attest annually in full"

Checks the server runs (3)

  • Every line in the fixture carries a verdict
  • Accept and reject land on the right lines
  • Each rejection cites a valid reason code

Check names are all you see here: the expectations that decide pass or fail, and the reference solution, stay on the server.

Step-by-step hints

The guided walkthrough, in full. It is free: no XP cost, and it does not touch the paid hint ladder or the reveal gate.

  1. Step 1

    Read the request before the artefact

    The vendor manager's claim is that participation equals coverage. Separate the two before reading: a completed questionnaire is an input, not a control.

  2. Step 2

    Judge every line, including the boring ones

    Six records, six verdicts. The register will operate whatever you accept, so a wrong accept becomes next year's surprise.

    Every line in the fixture carries a verdict

  3. Step 3

    Separate what is wrong from what is merely ugly

    Take the fields in pipeline order. Does the tier follow data access? Is the score reproducible by someone who was not in the room? Does the evidence have a shelf life?

    Then the loop: when this vendor changes an answer next year, what notices?

    Accept and reject land on the right lines

  4. Step 4

    Say why, in the vocabulary the programme uses

    Name the field that fails. Each defect routes to a different fix: the axis, the scoring method, the evidence rule, or the missing diff.

    Each rejection cites a valid reason code

Rules summary

  • XP on pass

    40 bonus XP the first time every check goes green.

  • Paid hints

    2 available. Each costs 25% of the lab XP (about 10 XP).

  • Reveal solution

    Scores 0 XP and unlocks only after 3 check runs.

  • Attempt cap

    60 check runs per learner. The runner warns you in the last 10.

  • Drafts

    Your editor content is saved in this browser, so a reload will not lose work.

  • Walkthrough

    Always free and never penalised: use it before spending a hint.