Hi,

 Reading the MagicGrid Book of Knowledge (BoK) V2 and section system behaviour for the solution domain:

"The LSA is not only about the system structure; the systems architect can capture the behavior of the whole SoI in the LSA model, too. However, this is not a common practice. Since the precise logical architecture of the SoI is not yet defined, the system behavior model appears too abstract and cannot say much about the system behavior. Moreover, it may conflict with the system behavior in the integrated model of the selected system configuration (see Chapter Building system configuration model). That's why this cell is often skipped when building the LSA of the SoI in real-world projects."

I next did read the chapter building system configuration model. I did not find an overall state machine for the VCCS system, the System of Interest (SoI), but an integrated system behaviour, attached below:

There are several aspects that can be asked and considered:

1. An initial understanding of the states can be captured for the solution domain behaviour and later- this could be translated in weeks or even month of sub-system design - when capturing the configuration of the solution complete the integrated system behaviour, as per capture above.
2. However, with no support of solution domain behavioural diagrams and analysis, what is the risk of miss-interpreting the textual requirements? A risk mitigation could be the sub-system solution architects could follow the refinement links to the problem domain white-box functional analysis?
3. Should it be considered integration at each level of the sub-systems?

Thanks,

Hélder Castro

magic grid