Results Summary of Intelligence Distribution Evaluation Sample Clauses

Results Summary of Intelligence Distribution Evaluation. This subsection shows the results summary of the testing evaluation performed to validate the intelligence distribution within the IoT6 project. According to the verdict of the Test Cases, we state if a Test Case has passed or failed. While in the most extreme case, one or more verdicts may exist for each Test Case, it is necessary that all verdicts can be answered as “YES” so that a Test Case can be seen as “PASS”. If only one of the verdicts for a Test Case fails, the whole Test Case is considered as “FAILED”. Test Case Title Verdict Resu lt TC_2 Smart routing by Smart Router YES YES YES YES YES YES PASS TC_3 Global switch-off of devices in the meeting room YES YES YES YES YES PASS TC_4 Alarm initiation at non-IP-enabled Legacy Device YES YES YES PASS TC_5 Alarm initiation at IoT6-enabled alarm device YES PASS TC_6 Alarm condition information of Safety and Management Tool YES YES YES PASS TC_7 Alarm condition information of mobile clients (Safety and Maintenance Apps) YES YES PASS TC_8 Update of alarm condition by System Engineer YES YES YES PASS TC_9 Information of ceased alarm condition YES YES YES PASS TC_10 Disabling of previously initiated alarms YES YES YES YES YES YES PASS Table 14: Summary of Evaluation Results 6 Intelligence Distribution and the Use of HANDLE This section is somewhat different from the others. In the previous sections, the theory and description of the application in previous deliverables were described. However, in this Deliverable how the components were being implemented and tested in Test Cases also introduced earlier is being discussed. In this section, we are describing in considerable detail the design of components that are used to demonstrate security functionality in the context of the IoT6 project. The basic mechanisms that are used have been described previously in D2.4 [39]. While the general technology was described, we did not define all the detailed steps to be used in a particular Use Case. Even less did we say about specific components that we have implemented. In the other sections here, the implementations have been completed, and the Deliverable describes the tests carried out between partners and subsystems. Although, it is important to submit D5.4 by the date specified in the DoW, the testing will not be complete until later in the project. Thus the implementation details and their tests will be described only in an addendum that will be submitted before the end of the project.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Results Summary of Intelligence Distribution Evaluation

  • Program Evaluation The School District and the College will develop a plan for the evaluation of the Dual Credit program to be completed each year. The evaluation will include, but is not limited to, disaggregated attendance and retention rates, GPA of high-school-credit-only courses and college courses, satisfactory progress in college courses, state assessment results, SAT/ACT, as applicable, TSIA readiness by grade level, and adequate progress toward the college-readiness of the students in the program. The School District commits to collecting longitudinal data as specified by the College, and making data and performance outcomes available to the College upon request. HB 1638 and SACSCOC require the collection of data points to be longitudinally captured by the School District, in collaboration with the College, will include, at minimum: student enrollment, GPA, retention, persistence, completion, transfer and scholarships. School District will provide parent contact and demographic information to the College upon request for targeted marketing of degree completion or workforce development information to parents of Students. School District agrees to obtain valid FERPA releases drafted to support the supply of such data if deemed required by counsel to either School District or the College. The College conducts and reports regular and ongoing evaluations of the Dual Credit program effectiveness and uses the results for continuous improvement.

  • Project Monitoring Reporting Evaluation A. The Project Implementing Entity shall monitor and evaluate the progress of its activities under the Project and prepare Project Reports in accordance with the provisions of Section 5.08(b) of the General Conditions and on the basis of indicators agreed with the Bank. Each such report shall cover the period of one

  • TECHNICAL EVALUATION (a) Detailed technical evaluation shall be carried out by Purchase Committee pursuant to conditions in the tender document to determine the substantial responsiveness of each tender. For this clause, the substantially responsive bid is one that conforms to all the eligibility and terms and condition of the tender without any material deviation. The Institute’s determination of bid’s responsiveness is to be based on the contents of the bid itself without recourse to extrinsic evidence. The Institute shall evaluate the technical bids also to determine whether they are complete, whether required sureties have been furnished, whether the documents have been properly signed and whether the bids are in order.

  • Program Monitoring and Evaluation (c) The Recipient shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, and furnish to the Association not later than six months after the Closing Date, a report of such scope and in such detail as the Association shall reasonably request, on the execution of the Program, the performance by the Recipient and the Association of their respective obligations under the Legal Agreements and the accomplishment of the purposes of the Financing.”

  • Project Monitoring Reporting and Evaluation The Recipient shall furnish to the Association each Project Report not later than forty-five (45) days after the end of each calendar semester, covering the calendar semester.

  • Management Reports Promptly upon receipt thereof, copies of all detailed financial and management reports submitted to the Company by independent auditors in connection with each annual or interim audit made by such auditors of the books of the Company.

  • Final Evaluation IC must submit a final report and a project evaluation to the Arts Commission within thirty (30) days after the completion of the Services. Any and all unexpended funds from IC must be returned to City no later than sixty (60) days after the completion of the Services.

  • FINANCIAL EVALUATION (a) The financial bid shall be opened of only those bidders who have been found to be technically eligible. The financial bids shall be opened in presence of representatives of technically eligible bidders, who may like to be present. The institute shall inform the date, place and time for opening of financial bid.

  • JOC EVALUATION If any materials being utilized for a project cannot be found in the RS Means Price Book, this question is what is the markup percentage on those materials? When answering this question please insert the number that represents your percentage of proposed markup. Example: if you are proposing a 30 percent markup, please insert the number "30". Remember that this is a ceiling markup. You may markup a lesser percentage to the TIPS Member customer when pricing the project, but not a greater percentage. EXAMPLE: You need special materials that are not in the RS Means Unit Price Book for a project. You would buy the materials and xxxx them up to the TIPS Member customer by the percentage you propose in this question. If the materials cost you, the contractor, $100 and you proposed a markup on this question for the material of 30 percent, then you would charge the TIPS Member customer $130 for the materials. No response TIPS/ESC Region 8 is required by Texas Government Code § 791 to be compensated for its work and thus, failure to agree shall render your response void and it will not be considered. Yes - No Vendor agrees to remit to TIPS the required administration fee or, if resellers are named, guarantee the fee remittance by or for the reseller named by the vendor?

  • PROGRESS EVALUATION Engineer shall, from time to time during the progress of the Engineering Services, confer with County at County’s election. Engineer shall prepare and present such information as may be pertinent and necessary, or as may be reasonably requested by County, in order for County to evaluate features of the Engineering Services. At the request of County or Engineer, conferences shall be provided at Engineer's office, the offices of County, or at other locations designated by County. When requested by County, such conferences shall also include evaluation of the Engineering Services. County may, from time to time, require Engineer to appear and provide information to the Xxxxxxxxxx County Commissioners Court. Should County determine that the progress in Engineering Services does not satisfy an applicable Work Authorization or any Supplemental Work Authorization related thereto, then County shall review same with Engineer to determine corrective action required. Engineer shall promptly advise County in writing of events which have or may have a significant impact upon the progress of the Engineering Services, including but not limited to the following:

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.