Pre-Build Spec — ACC6050 Module 6

Status: Approved — retrospective as-built documentation Generated by: Nexus (Claude Code) Approved by: Fadl Altarzi (LXD) — 2026-04-28 Build version: v2.7 Date: 2026-04-28

---

1. Assessment Identity

• Course: ACC6050 — Accounting and Financial Reporting
• Module: 6 — Accounting and Reporting for Business Segments
• Company: Hitachi (HTHIY)
• Version: v2.7 (last updated 2026-04-27)
• Route: /assessments/acc6050/module-6
• Rigour tier: transition (MBAF position 3 — earliest degree program; Mini-MBA position 2 excluded under the 2026-04-27 cross-listing rule update that filters out certificate programs)
• Bloom's target: L3–L4 (apply, analyze)
• Practice gate: 2 attempts
• Build state: assessment currently runs at building/full rigour — see punch-list #29 for the structural-vs-rule alignment review

2. Step Structure

#	Step ID	Label	Type	Lock dependency	showScenario
1	data	Review Data	Read-only segment data + industry panel + charts	None	no
2	ai-readiness	AI in Reporting	Single MCQ — AI governance risk in segment reporting (cyan badge)	Step 1 complete	no
3	ratios	Calculate Ratios	Interactive calculator (all 3 ratios correct to advance)	Step 2 complete	yes
4	trends	Trend Analysis	Read-only review (both horizontal + common-size tabs must be viewed)	Step 3 complete	yes
5	error	Analyst QA	SpotTheError written response (min 20 words)	Step 4 complete	no
6	policies	Policy Notes	Read-only review (mark as reviewed to advance)	Step 5 complete	yes
7	memo	Advisory Memo	Segment ranking + three written sections	Step 6 complete	yes

3. MCQ Inventory

ACC6050 Module 6 contains no traditional radio-button MCQ questions. All structured responses are either:

• Ratio calculator entries (numeric inputs checked against correct values with 0.5% tolerance)
• Written responses submitted to the AI grading API

Ratio calculator — required calculations (FY2023 data):

Ratio	Formula	Consumer Products	Industrial Solutions	Financial Services
Operating Margin	Operating Income ÷ Revenue	15.0%	9.0%	25.0%
Return on Assets (Segment)	Operating Income ÷ Total Assets	20.6%	6.6%	4.4%
Asset Intensity	Total Assets ÷ Revenue	0.73×	1.36×	5.68×

All three ratios, all three segments must be entered correctly before onComplete() is called.

4. AI Question

Step 2 — "AI in Reporting" (dedicated MCQ step, cyan badge)

• Category label: AI in Accounting — Governance Risk
• Question angle: AI-generated segment report drafts — management accountability and audit trail risk under IFRS governance
• Why appropriate for accounting: directly maps to the AI in audit/reporting governance angle specified for ACC in CLAUDE.md; tests understanding (L2) of governance accountability, which is appropriate for hook tier
• Correct answer: management accountability for narrative accuracy before board publication
• Practice gate: 2 attempts (hook tier standard)
• LD approval status: added 2026-04-24 — flag for LD sign-off before next deploy

Step 7 — Advisory Memo The advisory memo constitutes the AI-assessed written section. Three prompts are submitted to the grading API:

1. performance-summary — "Summarise the financial health of each segment. Which segment is performing strongest and why?" (min 50 words)
2. policy-impact — "Identify one accounting policy choice from the notes and explain its quantitative effect on the affected segment's reported results." (min 30 words)
3. recommendations — "Recommend one strategic action per segment. Ground each recommendation in the financial data." (min 40 words)

The SpotTheError step (Step 4) also has a written response (min 20 words). The response text is captured via onComplete(response) and stored in spotErrorResponse state in page.tsx. It is forwarded to the grading API as sectionId: "analyst-qa" ahead of the three memo sections.

5. Media Elements

• SegmentCharts (Step 1 — Review Data):
  • Recharts BarChart — Segment Revenue FY2022 vs FY2023 (grouped bars, USD $m). Three segments, two bars each. Consumer = blue, Industrial = amber, Financial Svcs = green.
  • Recharts LineChart — Operating Margin Trend (%) FY2022 → FY2023. Three lines, one per segment. Y-axis 0–32%.
• SegmentDataTable (Step 1 — Review Data): Tabular display of all five financial metrics (Revenue, Operating Income, Total Assets, Depreciation, CapEx) for all three segments across FY2022 and FY2023.
• SpotTheError (Step 4 — Analyst QA): Recharts BarChart — FY2023 Operating Income by Segment (USD $m), deliberately flawed. Y-axis domain [400, 600] instead of [0, ~1,400], making Industrial Solutions ($478m) and Financial Services ($547m) appear nearly equal when there is a meaningful ~14% gap. Consumer Products ($1,263m) is entirely off-scale in the flaw but renders near the top due to the clipped domain. (Chart 3.1)
• HorizontalAnalysis (Step 3 — Trend Analysis): Two-mode toggle table — Horizontal Analysis (YoY % change per metric per segment) and Common-Size Analysis (each metric as % of revenue). Both modes must be viewed to advance.
• RatioCalculator (Step 2 — Calculate Ratios): Interactive input grid with benchmark colour bands (Healthy / Watch / High) revealed after correct submission.

6. Industry Context Panel

Added in v2.1 — 4-item 2×2 grid rendered in Step 1 (Review Data), between the scenario brief card and SegmentCharts. Items in present tense:

#	Label	Rationale
1	AI-Driven Reporting Risk	Links to Step 2 AI question; introduces the regulatory context for AI in financial reporting
2	Industrial Segment Cost Pressure	Frames why Industrial Solutions margin compression is the critical segment story
3	IFRS Sustainability Disclosures	Contextualises IFRS S1/S2 as a new reporting burden for conglomerates
4	Consumer Lending Margin Squeeze	Explains Basel IV pressure on Financial Services segment capital allocation

7. Written Brief

Advisory Memo — Section 1: Performance Summary

• Prompt: "Summarise the financial health of each of the three segments based on your ratio and trend analysis above. State which segment is performing strongest and explain why using specific data from the tables."
• Minimum words: 50
• CLO mapping: CLO-1, CLO-2

Advisory Memo — Section 2: Accounting Policy Impact

• Prompt: "Select one accounting policy from the Policy Notes step (IAS 16, IFRS 15, or IFRS 16). Name the policy, identify the affected segment, and quantify its effect on that segment's reported results."
• Minimum words: 30
• CLO mapping: CLO-4

Advisory Memo — Section 3: Strategic Recommendations

• Prompt: "Write one strategic recommendation for each segment — three recommendations in total. Each recommendation must be grounded in a specific financial metric or trend you identified in your analysis."
• Minimum words: 40
• CLO mapping: CLO-1, CLO-2

8. Company Profile

• Name: Hitachi
• Ticker: HTHIY
• Sector: Diversified Consumer & Industrial Conglomerate
• Description (as rendered): "Hitachi is a multinational conglomerate headquartered in Chicago, IL, operating across three reportable segments under IFRS 8." (Note: description in data.ts places HQ in Chicago — this is fictionalized scenario data, not real Hitachi geography.)
• Source: docs/simulation-data/global_simulation_company_database.json (entry C0540 — all financial figures are plausible fiction, not real Hitachi data)

Three segments:

Segment	FY2023 Revenue	FY2023 Op. Income	FY2023 Total Assets
Consumer Products	$8,420m	$1,263m	$6,140m
Industrial Solutions	$5,310m	$478m	$7,230m
Financial Services	$2,190m	$547m	$12,450m

Policy notes included:

• IAS 16 — Straight-line depreciation; Industrial Solutions; $148m higher depreciation under diminishing balance (-31% op. income)
• IFRS 15 — Variable consideration constraint; Consumer Products; $94m constrained from revenue (+$8m op. income if recognised)
• IFRS 16 — Right-of-use assets; Financial Services; $1,240m ROU assets in total assets; $38m lease interest excluded from segment op. income

9. Grading Configuration

• MCQ weight: 0.75
• Written weight: 0.25
• Canonical program (Option A): Mini-MBA — but program="MBA" used in GradeReport until Mini-MBA thresholds are defined by LXD
• Degree level for grading: Masters (90/80 thresholds apply to MBA, MBAF learners)
• Mastery threshold: ≥90% overall; no individual pillar below 80%
• CLO demonstrated threshold: ≥80%
• Pillar weights: Domain 55%, Reasoning 25%, Contribution 20%

Written sections graded via /api/grade with courseCode: "ACC6050", moduleId: "module-6". Four written sections submitted: analyst-qa (SpotTheError response), performance-summary, policy-impact, recommendations. MCQ answers submitted as empty array (mcqAnswers: []). The AI governance MCQ (Step 2) is self-checked client-side only — not submitted to the grading API.

CLO-4 score calculated as: (domain_score × 0.6875) + (reasoning_score × 0.3125)

10. Compliance Checklist

• Step locking (isAccessible) — implemented; QA bypass unlocks all steps
• QA bypass (?qa=nxf-qa-8f2k) — implemented via URLSearchParams
• Ticker pill in header — HTHIY ticker pill rendered in scenario brief card on Step 1 (not in page h1 header — minor deviation from standard; h1 shows company name only)
• US English spelling — verified throughout
• Warm learner-facing tone — verified (RatioCalculator uses "Not quite — take another look at the formula and try again, you've got this!"; AI MCQ uses "Not quite — give it another look!")
• Version string in breadcrumb — v2.1 displayed in monospace in breadcrumb line
• No external logos (no Clearbit) — Nexford logo from /nexford-logo.svg (public/); no company logo
• AI question included — Step 2 dedicated MCQ (AI governance risk, cyan badge) + written memo submitted to grading API
• Recharts chart in ScenarioOverview — BarChart (segment revenue comparison) and LineChart (operating margin trend) in SegmentCharts component using ResponsiveContainer
• SpotTheError component — Step 5, truncated Y-axis [400, 600] on operating income BarChart
• Analyst QA step — Step 5 ("Analyst QA"), asks learner to identify truncated-axis error; response wired to grading API as sectionId "analyst-qa"
• Industry context panel — Step 1, 4-item 2×2 grid added in v2.1 between scenario brief and charts
• Back button on every step — explicit "← [Previous step label]" buttons present on all steps except Step 1 (no prior step); compliant
• [⚠] Rigour tier complexity — assessment complexity exceeds hook tier (L1–L3) expectations; flagged for LD review; not changed without LD sign-off

---

Approval notes

• SpotTheError written response (Step 4) now wired to grading API as sectionId "analyst-qa" — confirmed by LD (all assessment activities must count toward grade).
• assessments.config.ts lists ACC6050 under program: "MBAF" but the course appears in the MBA diagnostic folder (diagnostics/00-MBA/). The program designation should be confirmed by LXD — both MBA and MBAF use 90/80 Masters thresholds so grading is unaffected either way.
• GradeReport component in page.tsx is called with isAst0={false} — confirm this is correct; AST-0 (Knowledge Check) is not the assessment type for this module (AST-3 per assessments.config.ts).
• The ticker pill for Hitachi appears in the scenario brief card inside the step content, not in the persistent page header. Other assessments (e.g., FIN6160) render the ticker pill directly in the h1 header. This is a minor layout deviation from the standard pattern.