as given to Hazel to proof read

fmmd_concept/fmmd_concept.tex

@@ -342,7 +342,7 @@ to smaller and smaller functional modules \cite{maikowski}.
 \end{itemize}
 
 
-\section{Proposed Methodology \\ Failure Mode Modular De-Composition (FMMD)}
+\section{}
 
 \paragraph{New methodology Must be bottom-up}
 In order to ensure that all component failure modes have been covered
@@ -363,7 +363,16 @@ in \cite{maikowski}. This top down technique de-composes by functionality.
 Simpler and simpler functional blocks are discovered as we delve
 further into the way the system works and is built.
 
+\paragraph{Design Decision: Methodology Mus be Bottom-up}
+In oder to ensure that all component failure modes are handled,
+this methodology must statrt at the bottom, with base component failure modes.
+In this way automated checking can be applied to all component failure modes
+to ensure none have been inadvertantly excluded from the process.
+
 \paragraph{Need for a `bottom-up' system de-composition}
+There is an apparent conflict here. The natural way to 
+de-compose a system is from the top down.
+%
 What is required here is to mimic this top-down de-composition
 with a bottom up technique.
 
@@ -381,14 +390,24 @@ This means that we have to tie base component failure modes
 to SYSTEM level errors. This is the `possibility to miss failure mode effects
 at SYSTEM level' critism of the FTA, FMEDA and FMECA methodologies.
 
+\paragraph{Design Decision: Methodolgy must reduce and collate errors at each functional group stage}
+SYSTEMS typically have far fewer failure modes then the sum of its comonent failure modes.
+Many SYSTEM level errors may be caused by a variety of component level errors.
+At each fucntional group collection, there must be a process to collect
+common symptoms and reduce the number of failure modes to handle.
 
 \paragraph{How to build a SYSTEM failure behaviour model}
 The next problem is how to we build a failure mode model
 that converges to a finite set of SYSTEM level failure modes.
 %
-It would be better would be to analyse the failure mode behaviour in each
+It would be better would be to analyse the failure mode behaviour of each
 functional group, and determine the ways in which it, rather than its
 components, can fail.
+% 
+By doing this, the natural process whereby symptoms of the {\fg},
+which can potentially be caused by more then one 
+component failure mode, become the target for reducing the number
+of failure modes to handle as we traverse up the hierarchy.
 
 
 \paragraph{Component failures and {\fg} failure symptoms}