Evidence Governance
LMU/COICP Example
Evidence Governance Example
Govern LMU/COICP evidence creation, review, durability, quality, evidence gaps, handoff evidence completeness, and pilot-readiness limits.
Cross-Cutting
Evidence Governance
Everything Important Leaves Evidence
Example purpose
This artifact defines how evidence is created, reviewed, preserved, and used across LMU/COICP.
The project’s core evidence principle is:
Everything important leaves evidence.
For LMU/COICP, this is not just documentation doctrine. It is a governance rule for release, operations, deployment, monitoring, stewardship, and any future pilot decision.
Project
LMU Campus Operations and Incident Coordination Platform
Document control
| Field |
Value |
| Artifact owner |
LMU Architecture Review Board Chair |
| Primary reviewers |
Product Owner, Product Engineer, IT security reviewer, AI reviewer, Compliance reviewer |
| Status |
Accepted for internal-review evidence governance |
| Last updated |
2026-07-06 |
| Repository target |
docs/project-workspace/governance/evidence_governance.md |
| Related scope |
Evidence creation, review, preservation, and decision use |
Evidence principles
- Everything important leaves evidence.
- Evidence must be reviewable by future LMU engineers and reviewers.
- Evidence must distinguish normal path, failure path, accepted risk, and unverified gap.
- Evidence must identify owner, decision, limitation, and route.
- Evidence must be strong enough to support release and stewardship decisions.
- Missing evidence is a governance issue, not a documentation inconvenience.
Evidence categories
| Category |
LMU Examples |
Repository Location |
| Vision evidence |
COICP problem, LMU stakeholders, scope |
docs/project-workspace/vision/ |
| Requirements evidence |
incident intake, evidence, access, AI, emergency boundary |
docs/project-workspace/requirements/ |
| Planning evidence |
milestones, owners, RACI, risks |
docs/project-workspace/planning/ |
| Architecture evidence |
component boundaries, evidence flow, ADRs |
docs/project-workspace/architecture/ |
| Design evidence |
workflows, data model, errors, handoff behavior |
docs/project-workspace/design/ |
| Implementation evidence |
implementation log, AI use, defect notes |
docs/project-workspace/implementation/ |
| Integration evidence |
integration review, findings, accepted baseline |
docs/project-workspace/integration/ |
| Testing evidence |
tests, defects, verification matrix |
docs/project-workspace/testing/ |
| Release evidence |
release candidate, decision, scope, conditions |
docs/project-workspace/release/ |
| Operations evidence |
support, monitoring plan, risks |
docs/project-workspace/operations/ |
| Deployment evidence |
deployment ID, dataset, access, rollback |
docs/project-workspace/deployment/ |
| Monitoring evidence |
monitoring metrics, events, incidents, feedback |
docs/project-workspace/monitoring/ |
| Stewardship evidence |
lessons, backlog, next-cycle recommendations |
docs/project-workspace/stewardship/ |
| Governance evidence |
controls, risks, AI, release, stewardship governance |
docs/project-workspace/governance/ |
Evidence quality rules
| Rule |
Description |
| Traceable |
Evidence links back to a work item, requirement, decision, risk, stage, reviewer, or defect. |
| Durable |
Evidence is stored in the repository. |
| Specific |
Evidence states what happened, what was checked, what was observed, or what was decided. |
| Honest |
Evidence identifies gaps and known limitations. |
| Useful |
Evidence supports future review, release, operations, stewardship, or governance. |
| Owned |
Evidence has an accountable reviewer or owner. |
| Routable |
Evidence can be routed to the correct ETIS stage when action is needed. |
Evidence review responsibilities
| Evidence Area |
LMU Reviewer |
Review Trigger |
| Evidence event behavior |
Architecture Review Board chair |
Before release readiness and after monitoring |
| Handoff evidence completeness |
Architecture Review Board chair / Product Engineer |
Before any pilot discussion |
| Access-control evidence |
IT security reviewer |
Before real-user pilot |
| AI evidence |
AI reviewer |
Before any AI capability release |
| Data evidence |
Compliance reviewer |
Before use of production-like data |
| Release evidence |
Product Owner |
Before deployment or pilot |
| Monitoring evidence |
Product Owner and assigned reviewers |
After each review window |
| Stewardship evidence |
Product Owner |
Before next-cycle planning |
Current evidence strengths
- Normal incident creation evidence was observed during the March review.
- Deployment evidence identifies RC-001, deployment ID, dataset, and approved accounts.
- Monitoring evidence includes concrete metrics and named LMU reviewer groups.
- No-incident evidence is preserved.
- AI-disabled evidence is strong.
- Stewardship routes defects and improvements to specific stages.
Current evidence gaps
| Gap |
Impact |
Owner |
Route |
| Evidence write failure behavior remains unverified. |
Auditability under failure is unknown. |
Architecture Review Board |
ES-109 |
| Handoff evidence gaps observed in MON-OBS-003. |
Cross-office workflow trust is incomplete. |
Product Engineer / Architecture Review Board |
ES-107 / ES-109 |
| Full access-control matrix evidence remains incomplete. |
Real-user pilot is blocked. |
IT Security Reviewer |
ES-109 |
| Operational pilot evidence does not exist. |
Pilot expansion cannot be justified. |
Product Owner |
ES-110 / ES-111 |
| AI runtime evidence does not exist because AI is disabled. |
AI capability cannot be released. |
AI Reviewer |
Future AI readiness cycle |
| Retention evidence for production-like data does not exist. |
Real/sensitive data remains blocked. |
Compliance Reviewer |
Governance / ES-111 |
Evidence governance decision
Evidence is adequate for internal engineering review and stewardship learning.
Evidence is not adequate for operational pilot expansion.