Nine criteria set at approval, two failures on first test, one accepted deviation and a conditional acceptance: GM594's Unit 2 review of a food bank's new freezer and cooler. Searches like "gm 594 unit 2 assignment example", "gm594 unit 2 sample" and "gm594 unit 2 example" land here.
What a finished GM594 Unit 2 acceptance criteria review looks like
Six pages and an evidence appendix. A criteria table carries the body: criterion as written at approval, source document, test method, evidence, result and verdict. The freezer pull-down criterion, reach minus 10 degrees within 48 hours and hold it for 72, failed at 61 hours on the first run with one compressor short-cycling, then passed at 39 hours once the refrigerant charge was corrected. The alarm criterion failed too: a text reached the on-call phone in three minutes, but the escalation to a second contact had never been configured. Capacity came in at 172 freezer positions against 180, recorded as a deviation for the board to accept or refuse. Its last section records that the contractor's commissioning report had quietly used minus 5 as its target.
How a GM594 Unit 2 example is structured
One principle holds throughout: the test is the one written at approval, not the one written at the end. Every criterion is quoted from the design basis the board approved, with its page reference, before any evidence appears. Evidence comes from logs, test reports and witnessed checks, and each item is dated. Verdicts use three words only, met, not met or deviation, with the last reserved for shortfalls that need an authority's decision rather than a fix. The two retested criteria show both runs, so the first failure stays visible. The section on the contractor's minus 5 target is short and factual, stating the discrepancy and which figure governs. A conditional acceptance with three conditions, each carrying an owner and a date, closes the review.
Criteria quoted from approval
Nine requirements taken word for word from the approved design basis, each with a page reference and the method agreed for testing it.
A freezer tested twice
Sixty-one hours on the first pull-down, 39 on the second, with the short-cycling compressor and the refrigerant correction documented between runs.
An alarm with no second call
The first text arrived in three minutes, but the escalation step was never configured, so a missed call would have gone nowhere.
Eight positions short
A relocated sprinkler riser cost eight freezer positions, recorded as a deviation that only the board can accept.
A target quietly changed
The contractor's commissioning report measured against minus 5, not minus 10, and the review states which figure governs acceptance.
Where marks go in GM594 Unit 2
Reviews reporting whether the freezer works, rather than whether it meets the requirements the board approved, miss the whole assignment. Graders commonly compare the criteria quoted in the paper with those in the case's original documents, and a substituted test draws immediate comment. A failed first run omitted because the second passed costs credit, since acceptance records are meant to be complete. Verdicts without evidence, or evidence without dates and sources, earn less. A shortfall treated as a defect to fix, when it really needs a sponsor's decision, shows that deviation and nonconformance have been confused. Unconditional acceptance while failures remain open is a frequent error in this unit, and so is rejecting the whole deliverable over an item a condition could resolve.
Get a GM594 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Criteria as first written decide acceptance, so the approved requirements or charter outrank every other input; include them with the Unit 2 deliverable and rubric. Evidence, three-word verdicts and conditions with owners and dates fill the table you receive, first failures left visible. No charge for a first sample; turnaround 24-48h.
GM594 Unit 2 questions, answered
What if the case never states acceptance criteria clearly?
Then the review should say so and reconstruct them from the charter, scope statement or requirements, citing each source. The sample quotes a design basis the board approved, but many prompts supply vaguer material. Naming the gap is itself a finding: a project reaching acceptance without testable criteria has deferred an argument to its most expensive moment.
Should a deliverable with open failures be rejected?
Not always. A conditional acceptance names the failures, the fixes required, who confirms them and by when, and it lets the organization start using what works. The sample accepts the cooler and conditions the freezer on a documented alarm test and the board's decision on capacity. Outright rejection suits failures that make the deliverable unusable.
Who has authority to accept a deviation?
Whoever approved the original requirement, usually the sponsor or a governing body, not the project manager. The sample sends the eight missing freezer positions to the food bank's board because the board approved 180. A project manager who accepts a shortfall alone has quietly changed the scope, and graders in most sections notice.