Verification Notes

LMU/COICP Example

Verification Notes Example

Record LMU/COICP implementation checks, results, evidence, failures, fixes, known verification gaps, and ES-108 review focus for LMU-COICP-IMPL-001.

ES-106 / ES-107 Verification Results

Example AreaLMU/COICP

Current PageVerification Notes

FocusLMU verification results

UseRecord checks and gaps

Repository Areadocs/examples/lmu-coicp/implementation/

← Previous Implementation Decision Records

Current Verification Notes

Next → Implementation Risk Updates

Example purpose

This artifact records verification performed during controlled implementation.

Verification notes are not a final test report. They identify what has been checked, what passed, what remains partial, and what must be reviewed during ES-108.

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-107 implementation evidence
Last updated	2026-07-06
Related Engineering Stage	ES-107 — Controlled Implementation
Project workspace target	docs/project-workspace/implementation/verification_notes.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

Verification register

Date	Work Item	Check	Result	Evidence	Notes
ES-107 baseline	IW-001	IncidentRecord field inspection	Pass	field checklist	Matches data design baseline.
ES-107 baseline	IW-002	EvidenceEvent field inspection	Pass	field checklist	Supports event type, actor, timestamp, payload.
ES-107 baseline	IW-003	Create incident creates evidence event	Pass / review needed	workflow note	Requires ES-108 review.
ES-107 baseline	IW-004	Status and handoff update creates evidence	Partial	workflow note	Status transition checks incomplete.
ES-107 baseline	IW-005	Unauthorized create denied	Partial	access note	More LMU role tests needed.
ES-107 baseline	IW-006	AI Incident Summary not official	Pass by deferment	defer note	Feature not implemented.
ES-107 baseline	IW-007	Evidence write failure fails safely	Pending	failure-path note	Must be reviewed in ES-108.
ES-107 baseline	IW-007	Emergency-related workflow blocked or redirected	Partial	scope note	Requires Campus Safety review.

Failures and fixes

Failure	Work Item	Fix	Verified?
AI suggestion allowed create without evidence event	IW-003	Rejected suggestion; preserved fail-safe expectation	Yes
Access role names inconsistent across notes	IW-005	Standardized to LMU reviewer-role model	Partial
AI suggestion auto-saved AI summary as official	IW-006	Rejected; AI feature deferred	Yes
Evidence failure suggestion allowed current-state update	IW-007	Rejected; evidence write failure remains blocking	Pending ES-108
Emergency workflow suggestion treated emergency as normal COICP case	IW-007	Rejected; emergency boundary preserved	Pending Campus Safety review

Known verification gaps

• Automated test command not finalized.
• Access-control matrix tests incomplete.
• Evidence write failure path requires review.
• Status transition validation needs deeper testing.
• Review/export behavior deferred.
• AI-enabled path not tested because feature is deferred.
• Concrete build/test command evidence should be added when stack is finalized.
• Emergency-boundary behavior needs focused review.

ES-108 review focus

• Review create incident evidence event behavior.
• Review status update evidence behavior.
• Review evidence write failure handling.
• Complete access-control matrix tests.
• Confirm AI deferral prevents official AI output.
• Confirm scope boundary behavior for emergency-related or prohibited categories.
• Confirm known gaps are acceptable before integration.

Continue to Implementation Risk Updates

Record new, changed, retired, and carried-forward implementation risks.

Open Implementation Risk Updates →