Tier weights carried over from Unit 4, a forty-account rent test and two SOC 1 reports decide AC550's Unit 5 system selection matrix for a cylinder gas firm. Searches like "ac 550 unit 5 assignment example", "ac550 unit 5 sample" and "ac550 unit 5 example" land here.
What a finished AC550 Unit 5 system selection matrix looks like
Six pages built around one matrix. Rows are the 29 requirements from the earlier analysis, grouped in their four families and weighted by tier, three points for tier 1 down to one for tier 3. Columns hold three candidates described by type: a mid-market ERP installed by a reseller with a partner's cylinder module, a vendor-hosted industry package written for gas and welding distributors, and the current billing system kept and joined to a hosted cylinder-tracking service. Each cell holds a score from 0 to 3 and a code for its evidence: T for the rent test, S for a SOC report, D for documentation. Below the matrix sits the forty-account test result, and a separate panel sets five-year cost beside each weighted total without folding it in.
How a AC550 Unit 5 example is structured
Weights come straight from the requirements tiers, so the matrix introduces no new judgment about importance, and the page says so. Scoring anchors are defined before any cell is filled: 3 means shown working on Halvorsen's own data, 2 shown on vendor sample data, 1 claimed in documentation only, 0 absent. The rent test is the matrix's strongest evidence, and its results appear account by account, so a reader can see that the industry package matched all forty bills while the partner module charged rent on six customer-owned cylinders. Control requirements are scored partly from the two hosted vendors' SOC 1 Type 2 reports: the tracking service's report carries an exception in logical access testing, which lowers two cells, and each report's complementary user entity controls are assigned to a Halvorsen role. Cost stays outside the total.
Weights inherited, not invented
Three for tier 1, two for tier 2, one for tier 3, taken unchanged from the requirements analysis, so the matrix carries no fresh opinion about what matters most.
Anchors fixed before scoring
Three for a result on Halvorsen's data, two on vendor sample data, one for a written claim, zero for absent, and every cell coded T, S or D for its evidence.
Forty accounts, one February
The industry package matched all forty rent bills. The partner module charged rent on six customer-owned cylinders, and the interface option missed two late swap sheets.
Two SOC 1 reports, read to the end
A logical access exception at the tracking service lowers two control cells. The industry vendor carves out its data center, which a separate report covers, and user entity controls go to named Halvorsen roles.
Cost beside the total, never inside it
Five-year costs of 604,000, 548,000 and 377,000 sit next to weighted scores of 69, 84 and 61 percent of the maximum, leaving the trade in plain view.
Where marks go in AC550 Unit 5
A matrix whose weights have no stated source is marked down quickly, and one whose weights were plainly adjusted to favor a package loses more. Scores without evidence codes read as impressions. Graders at this level check whether control requirements were scored at all; matrices built only on functions ignore half of what an accounting system is for. SOC reports get misused in two directions: treated as a certificate that settles every control question, or cited without reading the exceptions and user controls they contain. Confusing SOC 1 with SOC 2, or Type 1 with Type 2, costs precision marks. Cost blended into the weighted total hides the real trade from the owners. Recommendations that ignore a failed rent test, run on data the business supplied, tend to draw pointed comments.
Get a AC550 Unit 5 example written to your instructions
Two candidates or five, the matrix is scored against your own requirements. Forward the Unit 5 prompt, your earlier requirements, any vendor material the case offers, and the rubric. Scoring anchors, evidence codes and cost set beside the totals come back within 24-48h, and there is no fee for a first custom sample.
AC550 Unit 5 questions, answered
Why read a SOC 1 report rather than a SOC 2?
A SOC 1 report covers a service organization's controls that bear on its customers' financial statements, which is exactly the ground rent calculation and billing occupy. SOC 2 reports address the trust services criteria, such as security and availability, and suit data protection questions. The matrix reads Type 2 reports, which test operating effectiveness over a period rather than design at a single date.
What are complementary user entity controls?
Controls a service organization assumes its customers will perform, listed in its SOC report, such as reviewing user access or reconciling what the system returns. The vendor's controls achieve their objectives only in combination with them. The sample assigns every such control to a Halvorsen role and counts any that nobody at the company could perform against the package.
Why test candidates on the company's own data?
Because a demonstration on vendor sample data shows a product at its best and avoids the awkward cases. The forty Halvorsen accounts were chosen to include customer-owned cylinders, rent waivers and late swap sheets, the conditions behind most disputes. A package that bills those correctly has shown something no brochure can, and the matrix scores it accordingly.