0.7 Parcheesi Assignment

1.Overview

A Should We Trust the AI Move?

AI tools can generate useful recommendations, but generated output is not automatically correct and is not evidence by itself. In this assignment, you will evaluate one AI-style Parcheesi recommendation and create a UML activity diagram showing how an AI tool, a human decision-maker, and an authoritative source work together.

The final decision remains with the human. Your diagram will show the AI producing a recommendation, the player identifying claims that need checking, an authoritative rule providing evidence, and the player deciding whether the recommendation should be Accept, Revise, Verify Further, or Reject.

B User Story

As a Parcheesi player, I want to evaluate an AI-recommended move before using it so that I do not assume a generated recommendation is valid.

C Acceptance Criteria

Use the supplied Parcheesi situation and AI-style recommendation
Identify at least one claim that requires checking
Use the supplied simplified Parcheesi rule as the authoritative evidence for this course example
Create a UML activity diagram with AI Tool, Player, and Parcheesi Rules responsibilities
Show recommendation, claim checking, evidence checking, comparison, decision, and outcome
Use Accept, Revise, Verify Further, and Reject as available outcomes
Keep the Player responsible for the final judgment
Submit through the Feedback System and submit the result URL to Canvas

D Task List

Read the Game Situation
Read the AI Recommendation as Claims
Check the Authoritative Rule
Choose Among Four Human-Judgment Outcomes
Plan the Three Responsibilities
Create the Diagram in Violet
Trace the Evidence Path
Save, Submit, and Revise

Evaluate whether the recommendation is supported by checked evidence, not whether it sounds confident.

2.Read the Game Situation

A Read the supplied object diagram

B Add the die roll

For this situation, Red rolls a 3.

1 Start at Cell 2

2 Count three cells forward: 3, 4, 5

3 Notice that Blue is already on Cell 5

Treat the generated statements below as claims to evaluate, not as facts merely because they were generated.

3.Read the AI Recommendation as Claims

A Separate the recommendation into claims

Where does the AI say Red should move?
What does the AI say should happen to Blue?
What does always the best move claim?

B Decide which claims require evidence

Ask: What source could actually support or contradict this statement?

Words such as should and always can sound certain. Certainty in wording does not prove a claim.

4.Check the Authoritative Rule

A pawn moves forward the number of cells rolled. If a pawn lands on a cell already occupied by a pawn of another color, move the existing pawn to its Start cell.

A Check the destination claim

Red begins on Cell 2
The roll is 3
Determine whether Cell 5 is supported

B Check the Blue-pawn claim

Blue is already on Cell 5
Red would land on Cell 5
Determine what the supplied rule supports

C Check “always best” separately

Ask whether the supplied rule says anything about the best strategic move in every possible situation.

Some claims may be supported while another claim remains unsupported. That is why Revise and Verify Further are useful choices.

5.Choose Among Four Human-Judgment Outcomes

Reference table

Outcome | Use it when...
Accept | The relevant claims are adequately supported for the current purpose
Revise | Useful parts can be kept, but unsupported or inaccurate parts need correction
Verify Further | You do not yet have enough evidence
Reject | The recommendation is contradicted or not sufficiently supported

A Review a small decision pattern

B Keep the human responsible

The AI generates the recommendation. The rule provides evidence. The Player compares the evidence and chooses the final response.

6.Plan the Three Responsibilities

A Read a generic responsibility flow

B Translate the roles to this assignment

Reference table

Partition | Responsibility
AI Tool | Produce the move recommendation
Player | Identify claims, compare evidence, and make the judgment
Parcheesi Rules | Provide the authoritative rule evidence for this course example

The flow can leave Player to check a rule and return to Player for comparison and judgment.

7.Create the AI-and-Human-Judgment Diagram in Violet

A Create the three named partitions

AI Tool
Player
Parcheesi Rules

B Use this partial diagram as a scaffold

C Add the human judgment decision

After Player compares the recommendation with the evidence, add a decision that determines what should happen to the AI recommendation.

D Add the four available outcomes

1 Add a path for Accept

2 Add a path for Revise

3 Add a path for Verify Further

4 Add a path for Reject

5 Keep all judgment actions in the Player partition

E Check Your Work

AI Tool, Player, and Parcheesi Rules are represented
The AI does not make the final judgment
The Player identifies a claim
Parcheesi Rules supplies evidence
The Player compares evidence
A decision follows the evidence check
All four outcomes are available
The Player owns the final outcome
The diagram fits on one Violet screen

8.Trace the Evidence Path

A Start with AI output

AI Tool produces the recommendation
Player identifies its separate claims

B Follow the evidence check

1 Move to Parcheesi Rules

2 Use the simplified rule as evidence

3 Return to Player

4 Compare each important claim with what the evidence supports

C Follow your selected outcome

Choose the outcome your evidence supports and be prepared to explain why. Refer to the supplied rule rather than to the AI's confidence or wording.

You modeled AI output as information that requires human review, verified claims against an authoritative source, and kept the final Accept/Revise/Verify Further/Reject judgment with the human decision-maker.

9.Save, Submit, and Revise the Diagram

Use the same concise submission process you practiced in the earlier Parcheesi assignments.