Week 6 Sensor Evidence Log

Close the hardware unit by defending one measurement system.

Your log should show the difference between a sensor producing data and a payload producing mission-ready evidence.

Measurement card

Choose one sensor or payload and record:

• the physical quantity it directly measures;
• the units;
• the reference frame or orientation that gives the value meaning;
• one likely bias or noise source;
• the calibration/configuration state;
• the mission claim that depends on the measurement.

Before / after / still unknown

Use a supplied calibration example and make three columns:

The third column matters. Calibration evidence from one condition does not prove performance across every range, vibration level, mounting position, or mission environment.

Payload disposition

Choose ready, revise, or hold for the fictional payload packet.

Cite one item from each category:

1. mounting / field of view;
2. calibration or configuration;
3. sample-data quality;
4. metadata or labeling.

Then state which failed or uncertain condition drove the disposition.

Claim boundary

Write exactly two sentences:

The evidence supports the claim that...

The evidence does not support the stronger claim that...

Make the second sentence genuinely stronger than the first.

Unit bridge

The next unit moves into flight dynamics and software. Answer:

What happens to a control system when the sensor data is precise-looking but wrong?

Use the loop from Week 5 in your answer: measurement → estimate → control decision → actuator response.

Exit standard

Your Week 6 log is complete when it ties physical measurement, calibration, mounting, metadata, and mission use into one defensible readiness decision.