Based on my experience so far, one needs to spend more time on sequence diagrams, risks and addressing non-functional aspects. However looking closely at the marks distribution, I realized that more weightage is given to Component Diagram 40 ,Class Diagram 40 and Deployment Diagram 24. I don't mean to undermine significance of these but there is a limit beyond which it's hard to add details in these diagrams.
I am not sure where to draw the line (in comparison to other artifacts) so that I justify the marks allocated. Any thoughts?
I have the feeling that Sequence Diagram is more about helping us to verify our model (I have made quite a lot of adjustments to my class diagram while drawing sequence diagrams) than real deliverable (the points you can get for those diagrams compared with the effort required are laughable).
So those points reflect just the significance of individual diagrams to test makers, not the effort required to create them.
subject: Marks distribution for part 2/3 doesn't seem balanced