Implementation Review Plan¶
← Previous
Repository Readiness Check
Current
Implementation Review Plan
Next →
Implementation Readiness Summary
Example purpose¶
This artifact defines how implementation changes will be reviewed.
Implementation review must confirm that code changes trace to design, preserve architecture guardrails, include appropriate verification, and produce required evidence.
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_review_plan.md |
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 |
Review scope¶
Implementation review must confirm that:
- work traces to design and requirements;
- guardrails are preserved;
- tests or checks are included;
- evidence-producing behavior is implemented;
- access-control behavior is reviewed;
- AI-assisted code is disclosed and reviewed;
- failure behavior matches design;
- emergency-boundary behavior is preserved;
- documentation or evidence is updated;
- no operational pilot capability was introduced;
- no real data or production connector was introduced;
- no architecture-sensitive behavior changed without decision record.
Reviewer roles¶
| Review Area | Reviewer | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Core workflow | COICP Product Engineer | PR review notes |
| Evidence events | Architecture Review Board chair | Evidence-flow review |
| Access control | IT security reviewer | Access review notes |
| AI interaction | AI reviewer | AI verification notes |
| Failure behavior | COICP Product Engineer / Architecture Review Board chair | Test / inspection evidence |
| Scope and emergency boundary | Product Owner / Campus Safety liaison | Scope review notes |
| Retention-sensitive behavior | Compliance reviewer | Compliance-sensitive note |
Merge hold conditions¶
A PR should not merge if:
- required evidence event behavior is bypassed;
- access checks are disabled or incomplete without explicit limitation;
- AI output can become official without human review;
- emergency or prohibited incident handling is weakened;
- logs are used as the only review evidence;
- scope expands without updated evidence;
- reviewer cannot trace the change to design or decision records;
- known failure behavior is not documented;
- real incident or production data behavior appears;
- operational pilot behavior appears.