Architecture Readiness Summary¶
Example purpose¶
This artifact summarizes ES-104 Architecture.
It decides whether LMU-COICP-ARCH-001 is ready to move into ES-105 Design and whether the handoff is concrete enough for the reader to see the same business problems flow forward.
Project¶
LMU Campus Operations and Incident Coordination Platform
Document control¶
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Artifact owner | Architecture Review Board chair |
| Primary reviewers | COICP Product Engineer, IT security reviewer, AI reviewer, Compliance reviewer, Campus Safety liaison |
| Status | Accepted with carried-forward actions |
| Last updated | 2026-07-06 |
| Related Engineering Stage | ES-104 — Architecture |
| Project workspace target | docs/project-workspace/architecture/architecture_readiness_summary.md |
| Previous stage | ES-103 — Planning |
| Next stage | ES-105 — Design |
Architecture context¶
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Source planning package | ES-103 — Planning |
| Architecture baseline produced | LMU-COICP-ARCH-001 |
| Design baseline expected next | LMU-COICP-DES-001 |
| Implementation baseline expected later | LMU-COICP-IMPL-001 |
| Integrated baseline expected later | LMU-COICP-INT-001 |
| Release candidate expected later | LMU-COICP-RC-001 |
| Downstream release posture | Internal engineering review only |
| Planned downstream review environment | LMU-COICP Internal Engineering Review Environment |
| Planned downstream dataset | Spring Semester Synthetic Incident Dataset |
| Planned downstream synthetic records | 421 |
| Planned downstream reviewer accounts | 24 |
| Planned downstream review window | March 18–22, 2026 |
| AI Incident Summary | Deferred / disabled |
| Operational pilot | Not approved |
Readiness decision¶
Decision: Ready to proceed to Design with scenario-specific carry-forward actions.
The architecture package is ready because it now establishes the concrete LMU business problems that Design will elaborate:
- COICP-SYN-001 Information Commons leak intake;
- COICP-SYN-118 Damen Hall Facilities handoff;
- COICP-SYN-204 Mertz Hall Residence Life access;
- COICP-SYN-219 Cudahy Science HVAC closure;
- COICP-SYN-322 emergency-boundary rejection;
- COICP-SYN-407 optional IT ownership extension.
Completed artifacts¶
| Artifact | Status | Design Handoff |
|---|---|---|
architecture_overview.md |
Complete | scenario set, priorities, constraints, risks |
system_context.md |
Complete | actors, systems, boundaries, trust zones |
component_model.md |
Complete | component responsibilities by scenario |
data_and_evidence_flow.md |
Complete | scenario evidence flows and event points |
quality_attribute_strategy.md |
Complete | quality risks tied to scenarios |
ai_control_architecture.md |
Complete | AI disabled behavior and future AI boundary |
architecture_decision_records.md |
Complete | scenario-driven architecture decisions |
architecture_review.md |
Complete | scenario coverage, findings, handoff actions |
Scenario handoff to Design¶
| Scenario | Design Must Produce |
|---|---|
| COICP-SYN-001 | IF-001 create incident, WF-001 workflow, IncidentRecord example, INCIDENT_CREATED EvidenceEvent |
| COICP-SYN-118 | IF-002 handoff, OWNER_CHANGED / HANDOFF_RECORDED evidence, fail-safe evidence write behavior, future review package |
| COICP-SYN-204 | Residence Life scoped access, denied export behavior, access matrix |
| COICP-SYN-219 | status transition table, closure rationale, invalid transition handling |
| COICP-SYN-322 | emergency-boundary block/redirect behavior and warning text |
| COICP-SYN-407 | optional IT ownership and handoff extension scenario |
Major architecture decisions carried forward¶
- Use current state plus evidence history.
- Require evidence for material state changes.
- Disable AI Incident Summary through RC-001.
- Use scenario-scoped role-based access.
- Block emergency-related inputs instead of creating normal incidents.
- Treat Spring Semester Synthetic Incident Dataset as review-data boundary.
- Defer full review export until evidence behavior stabilizes.
Risks carried forward¶
| Risk | Scenario | Target Stage |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence write failure | COICP-SYN-118 / COICP-SYN-219 | Design → Implementation → Testing → DEF-003 |
| Role matrix incomplete | COICP-SYN-204 | Design → Implementation → Testing → DEF-002 |
| Invalid transition | COICP-SYN-219 | Design → Implementation → Testing → DEF-001 |
| Emergency-boundary wording weak | COICP-SYN-322 | Design → Implementation → Testing → DEF-004 |
| Build/test evidence weak | all implementation | Implementation → Testing → DEF-005 |
| AI accidentally enabled | all RC-001 | Design → Testing → Release → Governance |
| Real/sensitive data entered | all scenarios | Operations → Monitoring → Governance |
Readiness for ES-105¶
Yes, Design can begin.
Design must not invent a new project. It must elaborate the same scenario set, same business problems, same boundaries, same evidence needs, same AI-disabled posture, and same internal-review-only release posture.
Final architecture-readiness statement¶
LMU/COICP is ready to begin ES-105 Design.
The architecture now establishes a clear flow of business problems into the next stage. Design should convert these architecture decisions into concrete interfaces, data structures, workflows, access rules, AI-disabled behavior, exception handling, and technical decisions.