Final Assignment Submission Guide & Rubric
Advanced Database Systems (CS-402)
Faculty of Information Technology
Academic Year 2025–2026
1 Assignment Overview
The final project is a group effort (2–3 students) to design and implement a robust software
system using Polyglot Persistence. Students must strategically utilize Oracle/MS SQL Server
for transactional data (ACID) and MongoDB for flexible content and analytical logging (BASE).
2 Hand-in Requirements
Each group must submit a digital archive (ZIP) containing:
2.1 1. Technical Implementation (Source Code)
• Functional application code and database initialization scripts (.sql and .js).
• A [Link] explaining how to run the system.
2.2 2. Final Project Report (PDF Structure)
The report must contain a Group Section (General Design) and an Individual Section for each
member:
1. [Group] Business Analysis: Scenario description and User Requirements.
2. [Group] System Architecture: Global diagram of the Polyglot interaction.
3. [Group] Database Design: Full ERD and NoSQL Collection structures.
4. [Individual] Technical Defense (1–2 pages per student):
• Ownership: Clearly list which modules/features you authored.
• Justification: Defend your design choices (e.g., ”I chose Repeatable Read for the loan
table because...”).
• Logic Walkthrough: A snippet of your most complex code (Trigger/CTE/Aggregation)
with a step-by-step explanation of its execution logic.
• AI Critique: Identify one specific instance where you had to manually correct or op-
timize an AI-generated database pattern.
5. [Appendix] AI Audit Log: Full list of prompts used by the team.
1
3 Evaluation Rubric: Group vs. Individual
Total Grade = (Group Grade × 0.85) + (Individual Defense × 0.15).
Category Weight Type Excellence Criteria (9.0 – 10.0)
Design & Architecture 35% Group Optimal split between SQL/NoSQL. Correct use of Normal-
ization vs. Embedding.
Technical Execution 35% Group Functional implementation of Triggers, Recursive CTEs,
and Sagas/2PC.
Report Quality 15% Group Clear diagrams, professional flow, and transparent AI
prompt documentation.
Individual Defense 15% Indiv. Student proves ownership of their code. Explains ”Why”
and can modify logic live.
3.1 Individual Performance Modifiers (Redlines)
The individual score is derived from the ”Technical Defense” section and the Q&A. Failure in
these areas will result in an individual grade lower than the group grade:
• Architectural Argumentation: Can the student justify the choice of ACID vs. BASE for
their module?
• Logic Ownership: Can the student explain the O(N ) complexity or the concurrency risks
of their code?
• AI Critical Review: Can the student demonstrate how they verified AI output for correct-
ness?
4 Special Instructions on AI Usage
AI is a powerful co-pilot, but the pilot (the student) must know how the engine works.
The ”Modify-on-the-Fly” Test
During the oral defense, I will randomly select one logic block from your Individual Tech-
nical Defense and ask you to modify it. Examples:
• ”You used a RANK() function here. Change it to ROW_NUMBER() live and tell me how
the business result changes.”
• ”You implemented Pessimistic Locking. If I remove FOR UPDATE, what specific race
condition occurs in your scenario?”
Failure to explain or modify your own code will be interpreted as a lack of ownership.
– Final Project Hand-in Requirements finalized –