Implementation Readiness Overview¶
← Back
Implementation Example
Current
Implementation Readiness Overview
Next →
Branch and Workflow Plan
Example purpose¶
This artifact defines the starting point for controlled implementation.
It translates the accepted ES-105 Design package into implementation scope, readiness assumptions, risk focus, and open questions before branches are created or code is written.
Project¶
LMU Campus Operations and Incident Coordination Platform
Document control¶
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Artifact owner | COICP Product Engineer |
| Primary reviewers | Architecture Review Board chair, IT security reviewer, AI reviewer, Compliance reviewer, Campus Safety liaison |
| Status | Accepted for ES-106 readiness baseline |
| Last updated | 2026-07-06 |
| Related Engineering Stage | ES-106 — Implementation Readiness |
| Project workspace target | docs/project-workspace/implementation/implementation_readiness_overview.md |
| Source stage | ES-105 — Design |
Implementation context¶
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Source design package | ES-105 Design |
| Implementation readiness stage | ES-106 — Implementation Readiness |
| Controlled implementation stage | ES-107 — Controlled Implementation |
| Implementation baseline produced | LMU-COICP-IMPL-001 |
| Integrated baseline expected next | LMU-COICP-INT-001 |
| Candidate expected after testing | 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 |
| AI Incident Summary | Deferred / disabled |
| Operational pilot | Not approved |
Source design evidence¶
docs/project-workspace/design/
Implementation objective¶
Prepare the first controlled implementation increment for the LMU/COICP core incident coordination workflow.
The implementation objective is to produce LMU-COICP-IMPL-001, a reviewable implementation baseline that can be handed to ES-108 Integration. It is not a controlled implementation.
Selected initial implementation scope¶
| Scope Item | Description | Source Design |
|---|---|---|
IncidentRecord entity |
Current synthetic incident coordination state. | data_design.md |
EvidenceEvent entity |
Structured history of official actions. | data_design.md, technical_decision_records.md |
| Create synthetic incident workflow | Create incident record and required creation evidence. | workflow_design.md, interface_design.md |
| Status and handoff update workflow | Update current state and produce update evidence. | workflow_design.md |
| Basic role-based access checks | Deny unauthorized create, update, review, AI, and close actions. | access_control_design.md |
| Error and exception behavior | Fail safely for access, scope, evidence, AI, and storage failures. | error_and_exception_design.md |
| AI draft-summary boundary | Preserve draft-only AI boundary or explicitly defer implementation. | ai_interaction_design.md |
Not selected for first increment¶
- full post-incident review/export implementation;
- advanced analytics;
- enterprise identity integration;
- public-facing portal;
- emergency dispatch integration;
- emergency notification replacement;
- medical, clinical, law-enforcement, student-conduct, or disciplinary record handling;
- autonomous incident command;
- official AI summaries without human review;
- operational pilot capability.
Readiness assumptions¶
- AI Incident Summary may remain optional or deferred.
- EvidenceEvent creation is required for official state changes.
- Branch workflow uses feature branches and pull requests.
- Implementation begins with core workflow before review/export.
- Retention rules remain open and must not be hard-coded.
- Concrete build/test/lint commands must be filled in once the implementation stack is selected.
- AI-assisted implementation is allowed only under the AI-use plan.
- No implementation work may introduce real LMU incident data or production data connectors.
Known implementation risks¶
| Risk | Why It Matters | Initial Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence event creation could be bypassed if direct state updates are allowed. | Weakens auditability and reviewability. | Guardrails G-001 and G-006. |
| Access-control rules may change after stakeholder validation. | Could require rework or new tests. | Keep role model explicit and testable. |
| AI draft handling could add complexity before core workflow stabilizes. | Optional AI may distract from core trustworthiness. | Gate or defer AI. |
| Test coverage may focus only on happy paths. | Failure modes are trust-critical. | Verification precheck includes failure tests. |
| Evidence write failure behavior is difficult to implement correctly. | State/evidence mismatch would violate design. | Treat as high-risk review area. |
| Emergency-boundary behavior could be implemented too casually. | COICP must not become emergency dispatch. | Require Campus Safety review. |
Open readiness questions¶
| ID | Question | Owner | Needed By |
|---|---|---|---|
| IRQ-001 | What concrete build command will be used? | COICP Product Engineer | Before ES-107 branch work |
| IRQ-002 | What concrete test command will be used? | COICP Product Engineer | Before ES-107 branch work |
| IRQ-003 | What concrete lint / format command will be used? | COICP Product Engineer | Before ES-107 branch work |
| IRQ-004 | Will AI Incident Summary be included in first implementation increment or deferred? | Product Owner / AI reviewer | Before IW-006 |
| IRQ-005 | Should evidence event writes be transactional with incident state updates? | COICP Product Engineer / Architecture Review Board chair | Before IW-003 / IW-004 |
| IRQ-006 | Which denied-action events should be preserved? | IT security reviewer | Before access tests |
| IRQ-007 | What emergency-boundary wording must be preserved during implementation? | Campus Safety liaison | Before IW-007 |