Release Governance

LMU/COICP Example

Release Governance Example

Govern LMU/COICP release decisions, release evidence, authority, blocking conditions, conditional release rules, scope expansion, and the current RC-001 release posture.

Cross-Cutting Release Governance Internal Review Only

Example AreaLMU/COICP

Current PageRelease Governance

FocusLMU release governance

UseControl release and pilot decisions

Repository Areadocs/examples/lmu-coicp/governance/

← Previous Risk and Exception Governance

Current Release Governance

Next → Stewardship Governance

Example purpose

This artifact defines how LMU/COICP release decisions are governed.

Release governance ensures that internal review, pilot, deployment, deferral, or expansion decisions are based on evidence and accountable risk judgment.

Project

LMU Campus Operations and Incident Coordination Platform

Document control

Field	Value
Artifact owner	LMU COICP Product Owner
Primary reviewers	Architecture Review Board chair, IT security reviewer, AI reviewer, Compliance reviewer, Product Engineer, Campus Operations lead, Campus Safety liaison
Status	Accepted for internal-review release governance
Last updated	2026-07-06
Repository target	docs/project-workspace/governance/release_governance.md
Related scope	Release, pilot, and release-expansion governance

Release decision types

Decision Type	Meaning
Release	Approved for intended release scope.
Limited pilot	Approved for limited real users, data, features, duration, and monitoring.
Internal review only	Approved for internal engineering or stakeholder review only.
Release with conditions	Approved only if stated conditions are met.
Defer	Not approved until additional work is complete.
Reject	Not approved and not expected to proceed in current form.

Current release decision

LMU-COICP-RC-001 is approved for internal engineering review only.
It is not approved for operational pilot.

Release evidence required

Evidence	Source
Testing summary	docs/project-workspace/testing/testing_readiness_summary.md
Defect log	docs/project-workspace/testing/defect_log.md
Guardrail verification	docs/project-workspace/testing/guardrail_verification.md
AI verification	docs/project-workspace/testing/ai_verification_record.md
Release candidate summary	docs/project-workspace/release/release_candidate_summary.md
Release decision record	docs/project-workspace/release/release_decision_record.md
Release conditions	docs/project-workspace/release/release_conditions.md
Operations readiness summary	docs/project-workspace/operations/operational_readiness_summary.md
Deployment readiness summary	docs/project-workspace/deployment/deployment_readiness_summary.md
Monitoring summary	docs/project-workspace/monitoring/operations_monitoring_summary.md
Stewardship summary	docs/project-workspace/stewardship/stewardship_summary.md

Release authority

Role	Authority
Product Owner	Owns final scope decision for internal review or pilot.
Architecture Review Board	Can block release on evidence, handoff, architecture, or guardrail integrity concerns.
IT Security Reviewer	Can block release on access-control concerns.
AI Reviewer	Can block release of AI functionality.
Compliance Reviewer	Can block release involving real, sensitive, or production-like data.
Campus Safety Liaison	Can block pilot if emergency-boundary wording or behavior is unsafe.

Release-blocking conditions for pilot

• Evidence write failure behavior not verified.
• Handoff evidence gaps unresolved.
• Access-control role matrix incomplete.
• Invalid status transition defect unresolved.
• Emergency-boundary wording not strengthened and retested.
• AI Incident Summary enabled without full AI readiness cycle.
• Real or sensitive data use without data governance, retention, and cleanup readiness.
• No repeated ES-110 release readiness after remediation.

Conditional release rules

• Conditions must be explicit.
• Scope limits must be operationally enforceable.
• Accepted risks must have owners.
• Deferred items must remain visible to stewardship.
• Scope expansion requires repeating release and operational readiness.
• Internal-review acceptance cannot be reused as pilot approval.
• Pilot approval requires new evidence after remediation.

Pilot reconsideration criteria

Before LMU/COICP can reconsider pilot:

1. B-001 evidence write failure simulation completed.
2. B-002 access-control role matrix tests completed.
3. B-003 invalid status transition fixed and retested.
4. B-004 handoff evidence gaps fixed and retested.
5. B-008 emergency-boundary warning revised and retested.
6. Data cleanup procedure defined.
7. Retention expectations defined for any production-like data.
8. AI Incident Summary remains disabled unless separately approved.
9. ES-110 Release Readiness repeated.
10. ES-111 Operational Readiness repeated if scope expands.

Release governance decision

LMU/COICP is governed for continued internal engineering review.
LMU/COICP is not governed or approved for operational pilot.

Continue to Stewardship Governance

Govern how monitoring evidence becomes learning, backlog action, owner accountability, and next-cycle routing.

Open Stewardship Governance →