Update information flow section

content/case_evaluation.tex

@@ -30,16 +30,14 @@ Many publications give credit to \textcite{royce_managing_1970}, for the concept
 Where they refer to the simple 5 to 8 step design concept, similar to the one in \autoref{sec:SE}.
 What these publications fail to address is that \textcite{royce_managing_1970} says: "I believe in this concept, but the implementation described above is risky and invites failure."
 Followed by multiple steps of improving the waterfall model.
-Royce adds a complete design step, loads of intermittent testing and documentation, and a literal instruction "Do it twice".
-With "Do it twice", he adds an extra 6 steps to develop a prototype parallel to the simple waterfall model, with the goal to spot every unforeseen requirement prior to any actual development.
-
-Interestingly, the mentioned problems that \textcite{royce_managing_1970} is providing a solution for, are similar to the difficulties in this case study.
-Studies and publications about the waterfall model would have been far more relevant if the authors included Royce's improvements.
-Especially as Royce explains that in his experience, the method without his improvements has never worked and that recovery costs far exceeded the added cost of the proposed improvements.
-I expect that these improvements would have had a significant impact on the design process.
-
-
-
+Royce adds a complete design step, loads of intermittent testing and documentation, and the instruction to "Do it twice".
+On initial thought this feels as a disproportionate amount of extra work.
+Especially since the current design plan already includes small feedback cycles.
+However, the small feedback cycles only apply to the current design, and do not provide information about the current design direction.
+Thus, the current level of detail might work, passing the tests of the current cycle does not guarantee a successful implementation of the design.
+Based on the evaluation, it was often difficult to justify the design decisions as there was insufficient information.
+A simple proof of concept would improve the information about the direction of the design, required resources and the feasibility of the project.
+Although this requires additional work, it is very likely that it improves the projects feasibility and thus reducing the risks of the project.
 
 \section{Development Cycle}
 \subsection{Design and model}