This question evaluates the understanding of relationships and trade-offs between software quality characteristics.

Statement C is fundamentally correct. Simplicity in a system's design and implementation (e.g., low complexity, clear structure) is a primary driver for its comprehensibility. A system that is easier to understand is also easier to analyze, maintain, and evolve.

Statement A describes a common trade-off in software engineering. Increased flexibility often implies more features, configuration options, and execution paths. This leads to a combinatorial increase in the number of states to be tested, making it significantly more difficult and costly to achieve thorough test coverage. Therefore, flexibility can negatively impact, or "reduce," practical testability.

B. Increased flexibility improves robustness: This is generally incorrect. Flexibility and robustness are often conflicting quality goals. Increasing flexibility can introduce more complexity and potential points of failure, thereby making the system harder to secure and potentially less robust.

D. Increased efficiency results in reduced performance: This statement is contradictory. In software quality models like ISO/IEC 25010, "Performance efficiency" is a key characteristic. Efficiency (resource utilization) and performance (time-behavior) are positively correlated; improving efficiency typically improves performance, it does not reduce it.

---

1. For Correct Option C (Simplicity increases comprehensibility):

Van Vliet

H. (2008). Software Engineering: Principles and Practice. 3rd Edition. John Wiley & Sons. Chapter 7

Section 7.3

on design heuristics

emphasizes that simplicity and low complexity are crucial for creating understandable and maintainable systems. It states

"A simple design is easy to understand and easy to maintain."

2. For Correct Option A (Flexibility reduces testability):

Patton

R. (2006). Software Testing. 2nd Edition. Sams Publishing. Chapter 1 discusses the testing axiom "The more complex the software

the more bugs it will have." Flexibility adds to this complexity. The book explains how a multitude of options and configurations (a hallmark of flexibility) exponentially increases the number of test cases required

making exhaustive testing impossible and practical testability more challenging.

3. For Incorrect Option B (Flexibility vs. Robustness):

International Software Architecture Qualification Board (iSAQB). (2019). Curriculum CPSA-Foundation Level

Version 2.0.1 DE. Page 19

Section 2.3. This official curriculum explicitly lists "Flexibilität vs. Stabilität/Robustheit" (Flexibility vs. Stability/Robustness) as a well-known example of conflicting quality requirements. This directly contradicts the claim that one improves the other.

4. For Incorrect Option D (Efficiency vs. Performance):

ISO/IEC 25010:2011. Systems and software engineering — Systems and software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE) — System and software quality models. Section 4.2 describes the "Performance efficiency" characteristic

which includes sub-characteristics like "Time-behaviour" and "Resource utilization." The standard defines them as related components of the same high-level quality attribute

indicating they are not in opposition.

A sequence diagram is an interaction diagram that details how operations are carried out by showing the time-ordered sequence of messages exchanged between objects or components (the "building blocks"). It is specifically designed to visualize a single use-case scenario, illustrating which building blocks participate and how they collaborate to achieve the scenario's goal. This makes it the most suitable diagram to demonstrate to colleagues that a set of components is appropriate for implementing a specific flow of events.

A. Use-case diagram: This diagram shows a system's functional requirements from an external user's perspective, but it does not describe the internal implementation or interactions between building blocks.

C. Activity diagram: This diagram models the flow of control and activities within a system or business process, focusing on the workflow rather than the specific object interactions for a scenario.

D. Class diagram: This is a static structure diagram. It describes the system's classes, attributes, and relationships but does not show how instances of these classes behave or interact over time.

1. International Software Architecture Qualification Board (ISAQB). Curriculum iSAQB® Certified Professional for Software Architecture – Foundation Level (CPSA-F)

Version 4.2EN. (2023).

Section 4.2.2

Interaction Diagrams (Sequence and Communication Diagrams)

p. 36: "Interaction diagrams describe the communication between components/objects. They are particularly well-suited to detail the course of a use case (a scenario)." This directly supports the use of sequence diagrams for the question's purpose.

Section 4.1.2

Use-Case Diagrams

p. 33: States that use-case diagrams are used for "gathering and structuring functional requirements."

Section 4.3.2

Class and Object Diagrams

p. 38: Explains that these diagrams describe the "static structure of a system."

2. Fowler

M. (2004). UML Distilled: A Brief Guide to the Standard Object Modeling Language (3rd ed.). Addison-Wesley Professional.

Chapter 4

Sequence Diagrams

p. 47: "Sequence diagrams are the most common kind of interaction diagram... A sequence diagram shows the interactions by showing the objects and the messages that are passed between them in a use case."

3. Seidl

M.

Scholz

M.

Huemer

C.

& Kappel

G. (2015). UML @ Classroom: An Introduction to Object-Oriented Modeling. Springer.

Chapter 7

Interaction Diagrams

p. 151: "Interaction diagrams are used to model the dynamic aspects of the system. They show how a group of objects collaborates in some behavior... Sequence diagrams are particularly suitable for showing the temporal sequence of a flow." DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12742-2

Software architecture building blocks are the fundamental elements used to construct a system's design. They exist at various levels of abstraction.

Component (B): A primary, high-level, and often deployable unit of functionality. It is a cornerstone of modern architectural description.

Class (D): In object-oriented systems, a class is a fundamental structural element. Key classes that define the core domain or system services are architecturally significant.

Package (H): A mechanism for organizing other elements like classes and components. It defines namespaces and controls dependencies, making it a crucial structural building block.

Algorithm (A): A specific, key algorithm can be an architectural building block. The choice of an algorithm (e.g., for encryption or data processing) is a critical design decision that directly impacts quality attributes like performance and security.

C. a test harness: This is part of the testing infrastructure used to verify the system; it is not a constituent part of the product's architecture itself.

E. a processor: This is a hardware component. While a system's deployment view maps software to hardware, the processor itself is not a software building block.

F. a method/procedure/function/operation: These are generally considered too fine-grained. They are implementation details contained within larger architectural elements like classes or components.

G. a local variable: This is a very low-level implementation detail confined within a single method and holds no architectural significance.

1. ISAQB e.V. (2019). Certified Professional for Software Architecture

Foundation Level

Syllabus

Version 3.0.1. Section 2.2

"Building Blocks

" p. 11. This section explicitly lists "components

" "classes

" and "packages" as examples of building blocks. It emphasizes that architects decide on the building blocks and their granularity.

2. Bass

L.

Clements

P.

& Kazman

R. (2021). Software Architecture in Practice (4th ed.). Addison-Wesley Professional. Chapter 2

"What Is Software Architecture?". This foundational text defines architecture in terms of its constituent elements (components

connectors

and data)

which are the primary building blocks. Classes and packages are common ways to realize these components.

3. Clements

P.

Bachmann

F.

Bass

L.

Garlan

D.

Ivers

J.

Little

R.

Merson

P.

Nord

R.

& Stafford

J. (2010). Documenting Software Architectures: Views and Beyond (2nd ed.). Addison-Wesley. In Chapter 9

"Component-and-Connector Viewtype

" the documentation for a component often includes "information such as... significant algorithms it uses

" confirming that key algorithms are architecturally relevant details tied to building blocks.

The most desirable characteristics of an interface relate to its ability to serve as a clear, stable, and robust contract between software components.

1. Clear descriptions of assertions and prerequisites (C): An interface is a contract. This contract must be unambiguous, specifying what the consumer must provide (prerequisites) and what the provider guarantees (assertions/post-conditions). This is fundamental to the "Design by Contract" principle.

2. Hard to misuse (G): A well-designed interface guides developers toward correct usage and makes incorrect usage difficult. This improves system robustness by preventing bugs at the integration points.

3. Easy to extend (A): Systems evolve. An interface should be designed to accommodate future changes and extensions (e.g., adding new functionality) without breaking existing consumers, supporting the system's maintainability and longevity.

B. Geared towards the capabilities of the provider: This is an anti-pattern that leads to tight coupling and violates the principle of information hiding, as the interface would expose implementation details.

D. As few parameters as possible: While a good heuristic for simplicity, it is a means to an end (like being hard to misuse) rather than a primary characteristic itself.

E. Scalable to many consumers: Scalability is a quality attribute of the component's implementation and the underlying infrastructure, not a direct characteristic of the interface's definition.

F. Remotely callable: This is a specific implementation choice relevant for distributed systems; it is not a universally desirable characteristic for all interfaces (e.g., those within a monolith).

---

1. ISAQB e.V. (Ed.). (2018). Curriculum iSAQB Certified Professional for Software Architecture - Foundation Level (Version 3.0.1).

Supporting (C): Section 3.2.2

"Specification of interfaces

" states: "An interface specification should be precise and complete and contain

for example

signature

documentation

pre- and post-conditions as well as information about the required quality of service." This directly supports clear descriptions of assertions and prerequisites.

Supporting (A): Section 1.2

"What is Software Architecture? -> Quality Goals

" lists "flexibility/extensibility" and "maintainability" as key quality requirements that architecture

and by extension its interfaces

must address.

Refuting (B): Section 3.2.2

"Information Hiding

" emphasizes that "The implementation of a component is hidden behind its interface." Gearing an interface towards the provider's capabilities directly contradicts this principle.

2. Parnas

D. L. (1972). On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules. Communications of the ACM

15(12)

1053–1058. https://doi.org/10.1145/361598.361623

Refuting (B): This foundational paper argues that modules (and their interfaces) should be designed to hide "design decisions that are most likely to change." This means interfaces should be abstract and not based on the provider's specific implementation capabilities.

3. Bloch

J. (2018). Effective Java (3rd ed.). Addison-Wesley Professional.

Supporting (G): Chapter 8

"Methods

" Item 52

discusses designing method signatures. A core theme throughout the book is API design

with a central tenet being that "APIs should be easy to use and hard to misuse." This principle is widely accepted in software engineering and is a key characteristic of a high-quality interface.

https://kxbjsyuhceggsyvxdkof.supabase.co/storage/v1/object/public/file-images/ISQI_ISAQB_CPSA-FL/page_25_img_1.jpg

https://kxbjsyuhceggsyvxdkof.supabase.co/storage/v1/object/public/file-images/ISQI_ISAQB_CPSA-FL/page_21_img_2.jpg

https://kxbjsyuhceggsyvxdkof.supabase.co/storage/v1/object/public/file-images/ISQI_ISAQB_CPSA-FL/page_20_img_2.jpg

Reference:

https://kxbjsyuhceggsyvxdkof.supabase.co/storage/v1/object/public/file-images/ISQI_ISAQB_CPSA-FL/page_5_img_1.jpg

https://kxbjsyuhceggsyvxdkof.supabase.co/storage/v1/object/public/file-images/ISQI_ISAQB_CPSA-FL/page_12_img_2.jpg

https://kxbjsyuhceggsyvxdkof.supabase.co/storage/v1/object/public/file-images/ISQI_ISAQB_CPSA-FL/page_4_img_2.jpg