The second value of the ACS code of conduct states that the IT developer must always work in a way that would ensure their developed product in some way improved the quality of life for the individuals who would be affected by the product (ACS, 2014). So now the question to address is, if the client would have better quality of life with the software product that Jane is signing off? The case study indicates that the system has passed all the contracted tests and Jane is reassured by her employers to sign off. Legally she is under no conundrum as such as what tests were required by the client and what the software development company agreed too has been completed. However, personal and ethically she is facing a conundrum because with her years of experience she knows that sub inventory system risks still exist and these risks could as well lead to significant harm for client and employees (albeit their lives are not in danger). The potential failure could make them suffer losses and hence their quality of life will be impaired indirectly even if they do not suffer a direct physical injury as such. Now according to the second value of the ACS, the ICT should protect and promote the health and safety of people. The meaning is that it should not directly or indirectly affect the health of people. ACS code and case studies state that the computing professional must “refrain from any conduct or action in your professional role which may tarnish the image of the profession or detract from the good name of the ACS (ACS, 2014b, p.13). So Jane should not sign off on the tests for the software system.